sdms us epa region v -1epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/remedial/docs/dd/powell rd landfill rod.pdf ·...

SDMS US EPA REGION V -1

SOME IMAGES WITHIN THISDOCUMENT MAY BE ILLEGIBLE

DUE TO BAD SOURCEDOCUMENTS.

DECLARATION FOR THERECORD OP DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Powell Road LandfillHuber Heights, Ohio

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedial action forthe Powell Road Landfill in Huber Heights, Ohio, which was chosenin accordance with the Comprehensive, Environmental, Response,Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extentpracticable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on theadministrative record for this Site.

The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedial action.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from thisSite, if not addressed by implementing the remedial actionselected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present animminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION

The remedial action will be a final site-wide remedy. Theselected remedial action addresses the sources of thecontamination by containment of the landfill and contaminatedsoils and treatment of leachate and ground water. The majorcomponents of the selected remedial action for the Powell RoadLandfill are:

institutional controlsimproved landfill cap with linerexcavation of contaminated soilsconsolidation of soils under landfill capground water monitoringflood protectionstorm water controlsactive landfill gas collection with flareleachate extractionon-site leachate treatmentextraction of ground water from the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfillon-site ground water treatmentdischarge of treated ground water and leachate to river

The selected remedial action will address the principal threatsposed by the Site.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedial action is protective of human health andthe environment, complies with Federal and State requirementsthat are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to theremedial action, and is cost-effective. The remedial actionutilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatmenttechnologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies thestatutory preference for remedies that employ treatment thatreduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.

Because this remedial action will result in hazardous substancesremaining on-site, a review will be conducted within five yearsafter commencement of remedial action to insure that the remedialaction continues to provide adequate protection of human healthand the environment.

Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RECORD OF DECISIONPOWBLL ROAD LANDFILL

I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................. 1

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ............... 2A. SITE HISTORY .................................. 2B. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ........................ 3

III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ............................ 3

IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION .................. 4

V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS .................... 6A. ON-SITE ....................................... 6B. OFF-SITE ...................................... .8

VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS .............................. 8A. HUMAN HEALTH RISKS ............................ 9

1. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ...................... 92. TOXICITY ASSESSMENT ...................... 113. RISK CHARACTERIZATION .................... 11

B. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .................... 13C. RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS ..................... 14

VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................ 14

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION .......................... 15ALTERNATIVE 2 ...................................... 15COMMON COMPONENTS .................................. 16ALTERNATIVE 3 ...................................... 18ALTERNATIVE 4 ...............'....................... 19ALTERNATIVE 5 ...................................... 20ALTERNATIVE 6 ...................................... 21ALTERNATIVE 7 ...................................... 22

VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .. 23

THRESHOLD CRITERIA ................................. 231. OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH

AND THE ENVIRONMENT ........................... 232. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT

AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS) .......... 27

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA ......................... 293. LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE ........ 294. REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR

VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT ...................... 295. SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS ...................... 306. IMPLEMENTABILITY .............................. 31

7. COST .......................................... 31

MODIFYING CRITERIA ................................. 338. STATE ACCEPTANCE .............................. 339. COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE .......................... 33

IX. SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION - ALTERNATIVE 4 ........... 33

X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ........................... 35

A. PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH ANDTHE ENVIRONMENT ............................... 35

B. COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS ......................... 36C. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ............................ 40D. UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS

AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIESTO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE ............. 41

E. PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT ...................... 42

XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ............... 42

FIGURES, TABLES AND ATTACHMENTS

RECORD OF DECISIONPOWELL ROAD LANDFILL

FIGURE 1FIGURE 2FIGURE 3FIGURE 4FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6FIGURE 7FIGURE 8FIGURE 9FIGURE 10

TABLE 1TABLE 2TABLE 3TABLE 4TABLE 5TABLE 6TABLE 7TABLE 8TABLE 9TABLE 10TABLE 11TABLE 12TABLE 13

TABLE 14

TABLE 15

TABLE 16

TABLE 17

TABLE 18

TABLE 19

TABLE 20

TABLE 21TABLE 22

TABLE 23TABLE 24TABLE 25

SITE VICINITY MAPHYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION TRACESHYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONSGAS VENT VAPOR TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONSLANDFILL LIQUIDS/GROUND WATER TOTAL VOCCONCENTRATIONSAMBIENT AIR QUALITY SAMPLE LOCATIONSSEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONSSURFICIAL AND SUBSURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONSSITE PLAN (SOIL CONTAMINANTS)EXTENT OF TOTAL VOC CONTAMINATION - PRINCIPALAQUIFER

GAS VENT METHANE MEASUREMENTSGAS VENT VAPOR - FIELD ORGANIC ANALYSISGAS VENT LIQUID - VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSISGAS VENT LIQUID - SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSISGAS VENT LIQUID - INORGANIC ANALYSISSURFACE LEACHATE ANALYSISAMBIENT AIR TENAX TUBE ANALYSISSEDIMENT ANALYSISSURFACE WATER ANALYSISSURFICIAL SOILS ANALYSISSUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYSISGROUND WATER ANALYSIS - VOCS AND ARSENICSUMMARY OP CHEMICALS DETECTED IN ELDORADO PLATAREA GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLSSUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN(ORGANICS)SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN(INORGANICS)ORAL TOXICITY CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIALCONCERNINHALATION TOXICITY CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OFPOTENTIAL CONCERNCOMPARISON OF CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS FORCHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN DETECTED AT PRL TOFEDERAL MCLaSUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITHCURRENT LAND USE CONDITIONSSUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITHFUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONSSUMMARY OF RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELSCHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT ANDAPPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTSSTATE OF OHIO: SURFACE WATER STANDARDSSTATE OF OHIO LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARSSTATE OF OHIO: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS

ATTACHMENT 1 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARYATTACHMENT 2 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

DECISION SUMMARY

POWELL ROAD LANDFILLHUBER HEIGHTS, OHIO

I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site (the Site) is located inHuber Heights, Ohio, a suburb in the northern Dayton metropolitanarea of Montgomery County, Ohio. The Site occupies approximately70 acres on the floodplain of the Great Miami River (see Figure1}. The landfill portion of the Site is located at 4060 PowellRoad in Huber Heights, Ohio, and is bordered by Powell Road andresidential housing on the north, an intermittent stream to theeast, wooded areas to the south and west, and the Great MiamiRiver to the south. The landfill covers roughly 36.3 acres andrises 30 to 40 feet above the surrounding terrain. The nearestresidents live in homes owned by the current owner of thelandfill. The homes are located approximately 200 feet north ofthe landfill along Powell Road. A residential area, known asEldorado Plat, is located south of the landfill in an areaimmediately south of the Great Miami River.

The Great Miami River flows east to west along the southernboundary of the Site, approximately 150 feet south of thelandfill. Two intermittent streams (Stream A and Stream B) tothe east of the Site drain south to the river. The Great MiamiRiver is classified as a warm water habitat (OAC 3745-1-21} andis used for agricultural, industrial and primary contact (i.e.wading) purposes.

Geologic materials in the area of the Site are outwash deposits(sand, sand and gravel, and silty sand and gravel), till(unsorted sand, clay, silt and gravel), lacustrine deposits (thinlayers of clay, silt and very fine sand) and bedrock (see Figure3). The outwash deposits constitute the regional aquifer knownas the Great Miami River buried valley aquifer (GMR BVA) whichhas been designated a aole-source aquifer under U.S. EPA's SafeDrinking Water Act (SDWA).

The GMR BVA is locally divided into shallow and primary aquifers.Separation of the two aquifers by confining till deposits occursunder the southern portion of the landfill and under the river.(Hereinafter, these two locally separated aquifers are identifiedas the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill and the primaryaquifer adjacent to the landfill.) The confining till depositsare also present south of the river (Eldorado Plat area),however, they are not continuous, therefore only oneinterconnected aquifer exists in this area. (Hereinafter, theaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) is identified asthe primary aquifer.) Figure 2 identifies the location ofhydrogeologic cross-section traces. Figure 3 identifies cross-

sections C-C' (north-south) and J-J' (east-west, Eldorado Platarea) and labels the above-discussed local aquifers.

The GMR BVA is the main source of water supply to the Daytonmetropolitan area. Residents located south of the Site, in thearea immediately south of the river known as Eldorado Plat,obtain their water from private wells installed in the primaryaquifer. Approximately 0.75 miles south of the Site are OhioSuburban Water Company (OSWC) wells, which supply water toresidents in most of Huber Heights and a ."-nail portion of MadRiver Township. Approximately 1.5 miles south of the Site, theCity of Dayton operates wells in the GMR BVA. These wells supplywater to residents of Dayton, a number of other localmunicipalities, and Montgomery County. Approximately 0.5 mileswest of the Site the city of Dayton has begun operation of a newwell field.

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

A. SITE HISTORY

The Site is a former gravel pit which was converted to a landfillin 1959 and operated until 1984 under several different owners.The current owner is SCA Services of Ohio, a subsidiary of WasteManagement of North America, Inc. Commercial, industrial, andnon-hazardous domestic wastes were disposed of in the landfill.Degradation of these wastes resulted in a release of hazardoussubstances. It is also believed that improper disposal ofcertain types of industrial waste have occurred at the landfill,including ink waste, paint sludge, strontium chromate andbenzidine. The landfill ceased operation in 1984 and was cappedand seeded in 1985.

The Site was proposed for listing on the National Priorities List(NPL) on September 8, 1983 and was final on the NPL on September21, 1984.

In December, 1984, after identifying contamination in the groundwater in the area of the Site, the Ohio EPA requested U.S. EPA'ssupport to determine if an imminent and substantial endangermentto human health or the environment existed. U.S. EPA's TechnicalAssistance Team (TAT) sampled 46 private residential wells.Sampling results identified low levels of VOCs in 6 residentialwells. After reviewing these sampling results, U.S. EPAdetermined that an imminent and substantial risk to human healthand the environment was not present at that time, and emergencyactions were not required at that time. However, the U.S. EPArecommended that several activities be conducted in the area,which included conducting a detailed Remedial Investigation ofthe Powell Road Landfill (see Section V.).

B. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

In April, 1986, negotiations began for a 106 Administrative Orderon Consent (AOC) under which Potentially Responsible Parties(PRPs) would perform the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study(RI/FS) at the Site. These negotiations terminated in May, 1986,and U.S. EPA began performance of the RI/FS at the Site.

During June of 1987, one PRP, SCA Services of Ohio, Incorporated,contacted U.S. EPA and expressed interest in taking overperformance of the RI/FS. On November 12, 1987, an AOC wasentered into between the U.S. EPA, the Ohio EPA, and SCA Servicesof Ohio, Incorporated (SCA) (currently a subsidiary of WasteManagement of North America, Inc.). This AOC requires SCA tomeet a number of requirements, including conducting an RI/FS andpaying all past costs associated with the Site. The final RIreport was approved in March of 1992 and the FS was approved inMarch of 1993.

Initial PRP search activities at this Site identified seven (7)PRPs. General Notices of Potential Liability and CERCLA Section104(e) Information Requests were issued to all seven (7) PRPs onDecember 2, 1985. Since 1985, U.S. EPA has issued 232Information Request and 83 follow-up Information Requests.General Notice letters were sent to thirty-seven (37) PRPs inMay, 1993.

Additional future Information Requests and follow-up InformationRequests will be issued as appropriate. All PRP informationwhich has been gathered to date is being reviewed. SpecialNotice letters inviting participation in RD/RA negotiations areexpected to be issued to appropriate PRPs by U.S. EPA in the nearfuture.

III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The public participation requirements of CERCLA sections113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117 were met in the remedial actionselection process by the following:

A Proposed Plan was finalized and released to thepublic on May 13, 1993;The public was able to comment on the Proposed Planduring a public comment period which started on May 20,1993 and ended on July 9, 1993 (extended 21 days fromoriginal date of June 18, 1993); andThe public also had the opportunity to participate in aProposed Plan public meeting held Wednesday, June 2,1993, in Huber Heights, Ohio.An informational letter was sent to all parties on themailing list on August 23, 1993. The letter discussedresidential well sampling which has been conducted at

the Site from 1984 to present and the results of thesampling.

Public interest at the Site has been high since the RI began. InAugust, 1989 a Technical Assistance Grant was awarded to theMiami Valley Landfill Coalition (MVLC), a local citizen's group.During the RI, MVLC reviewed numerous documents and met with theU.S. EPA and Ohio EPA on several occasions to discuss documents,present their ideas on additional field work, and theirinterpretations of RI data. MVLC also commented on technologiesidentified in the FS, and the proposed remedial action presentedin the Proposed Plan.

In 1989, when the RI was close to completion, MVLC concerns,which reflect community concerns in general, were a major factorin the U.S. EPA's and Ohio EPA's decision to install and sampleadditional monitoring wells and resample select existingmonitoring and residential wells again. MVLC was concerned thatthe connection between the Site and ground water contaminationidentified approximately 4,000 feet south of the landfill, in theNeedmore Road area, had been missed. Installation of newmonitoring wells was planned specifically with the intent ofconfirming the existence of any connection. Despite thisadditional round of sampling, a connection between the Site andthe Needmore Road ground water contamination was not identified.

Public comments, verbal and written, received at the publicmeeting on the Proposed Plan and during the public comment periodalong with supporting documents, and response to significantcomments, are contained in the Responsiveness Summary attached tothis ROD.

IV. SCOPE AND ROLS OP RESPONSE ACTION

The selected remedial action will address the principal threatsin contaminated media identified at the Site. These principalthreats are landfill gases, contaminated ground water, landfillliquids (leachate) and contaminated soils. The landfill will becovered by an improved landfill cap with a liner which willprevent uncontrolled migration of landfill gases into the air,and prevent infiltration of precipitation into the landfill,thereby reducing the generation of leachate and also reducing thepercolation of leachate from the landfill into ground water.

Landfill gases will be actively collected with extraction wellsand thermally-treated on site with a flare.

Ground water contamination was identified in the primary andshallow aquifers adjacent to the landfill and in the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). The selectedremedial action will address ground water contamination by

extracting ground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill, treating ground water on-site, and discharging treatedground water to the Great Miami River in compliance with NPDESpermit requirements.

Leachate is present in the landfill and is a source of groundwater contamination adjacent to the Site. Leachate will beextracted from the landfill, treated on-site, and discharged tothe Great Miami River in compliance with NPDES permitrequirements.

Contaminated soils will be excavated and consolidated on thelandfill prior to construction of the landfill cap.

The geology of the Site indicates that ground water contaminationidentified in the shallow aquifer, adjacent to the landfill,could migrate under the Great Miami River and is a possiblesource of ground water contamination identified in monitoringwells south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). By extracting andtreating leachate from the landfill, and ground water in theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill, the two sources ofground water contamination identified in the primary aquiferadjacent to the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Platarea), will be removed. Once the sources are removed, groundwater contamination identified in the primary aquifer adjacent tothe landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), isexpected to decrease and meet cleanup levels.

A ground water monitoring network will be established on the Site(around the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Platarea)). The purpose of ground water monitoring is to: 1)evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containmentcomponents of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (primaryand shallow aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitorfor changes in ground water flow and potential migration ofcontaminated ground water from the Site.

The selected remedial action is expected to be the final responsefor the Site. Because this remedial action will result inhazardous substances remaining on-site, a review will beconducted within five years after commencement of remedial actionto insure that the remedial action continues to provide adequateprotection of human health and the environment.

V. SUMMARY OP SITB CHARACTERISTICS

The RI determined the nature and extent of on-site and off-sitecontamination, and estimated the risks posed by the Site to humanhealth and the environment. The RI Report, finalized inFebruary, 1992, identified the following on-site and off-sitecontamination:

ON-SITE (contamination associated with the Site)

Landfill gases consisting of methane with detectableconcentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Leachate consisting of VOCs, semivolatile organiccompounds, and inorganic compounds

Surface and near-surface soils which containsemivolatile organics, pesticides, and polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs).

Shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfillcontain VOCs

Primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)contains VOCs

OFF-SITE (contamination not associated with the Site)

Primary aquifer south of the river (Needmore Road area)contains VOCs. A connection between the Site andcontamination found in this area could not be confirmedand is therefore not addressed by the final remedialaction.

A. ON-SITE

The Powell Road Landfill is the source of ground watercontamination found in the immediate vicinity of the landfill andis responsible for the generation of landfill gases and leachate.The landfill consists of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards ofmaterial.

Landfill gases found in the landfill gas vents and air at theSite consisted mostly of methane with detectable concentrationsof volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Figure 4 shows thelocations of gas vents and the total VOC concentrations found inthe gas vents. Table 1 shows concentrations of methane detectedin gas vents and Table 2 shows concentrations of VOCs detected ingas vents.

Thirteen samples of leachate were collected, from gas vents in thelandfill (Figure 5). Analysis identified VOCs (Table 3),

semivolatile compounds (Table 4), metals, and other inorganics(Table 5). Figure 5 shows the leachate/ground water total VOCconcentrations at the Site.

One sample of leachate was collected from the landfill surface.Analysis identified VOCs, semivolatile compounds, metals, andother inorganics. Table 6 presents the results of the surfaceleachate sample analysis.

The chemicals and concentrations found in the surface leachatewere essentially the same as the leachate collected from gasvents. Therefore, surface leachate and leachate collected fromgas vents are grouped together in further discussions.

Ambient air samples were collected at the Site (Figure 6).Results identified trace amounts of VOCs (Table 7).

Eight sediment samples were collected from surface water bodieson and around the Site (Figure 7). Analysis showed no impactfrom the landfill in the form of VOCs or inorganic contaminants(Table 8). Several semivolatiles were detected in both upstreamand downstream sediment samples.

Surface water samples were collected from the same locations assediment samples (Figure 7). Analysis showed no impact from thelandfill in the form of VOCs, semivolatile compounds, orinorganic contaminants (Table 9).

Thirty-two surface soil samples and twelve sub-surface soilsamples were collected on the Site and in surrounding areas(Figure 8). Surface and near-surface soils at the Site containsemivolatile organics, pesticides and PCBs at limited locations(Tables 10 and 11). Figure 9 identifies the location andapproximate extent of surface and subsurface soils contamination.

Ground water quality was investigated by analyzing water sampledfrom 44 new and existing monitoring wells (four sampling events)and 30 residential and water supply wells on two occasions.

VOCs were the major contaminant group found in ground water. Atotal of 15 VOCs were detected in ground water samples collectedduring the RI.

VOCs were detected in six monitoring wells in the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill and in two monitoring wells in theprimary aquifer adjacent to the landfill (Table 12).

VOCs were identified in the primary aquifer south of the river(Eldorado Plat area) during the last sampling round (Table 13).

Ground water sample analyses identified that MCLs were exceededfor two VOCs (vinyl chloride and trichloroethene) and two metals(aluminum and beryllium).

Ground water samples obtained during the RI, from residentialwells south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) did not identifyany contamination. Additional ground water samples ofresidential wells in the Eldorado Plat area were collected andanalyzed in March, 1993. VOCs were detected in one residentialwell. Similar levels of the same VOCs were found in this wellprior to the RI, but were not detected during the RI sampling ofthe well.

3. OFF-SITE

VOCs were identified in ground water 4,000 feet south of thelandfill {Needmore Road area) (Figure 10). The VOCs identifiedin the Needmore Road area consisted mainly of "ethene" VOCs. Theground water contamination found in the Needmore Road area couldnot be connected to contamination found on the Site. If the Sitewere the source of ground water contamination found in theNeedmore Road area, ground water contaminants would have beenfound between the Site and the Needmore Road area. Additionally,dispersion of contaminants caused by migration from the Site tothe Needmore Road area would occur, and downgradient contaminantsin the Needmore Road area, would be equal-to, or more likely,less-than the ground water contamination found on the Site.However, ground water contamination was not found between theNeedmore Road area and the Site, nor were the Needmore Road areaground water contamination levels equal-to or less-thancontamination found at the Site. The "ethene" VOC contaminantsfound in the Needmore Road area were found at levels up to 4-times greater than "ethene" VOCs found in ground water adjacentto the landfill.

However, if in the future a connection is found which identifiesPRL as the source of contamination in the Needmore Road area,either a ROD amendment or an Explanation of SignificantDifferences will be prepared, as appropriate.

VI. SUMMARY OF SITB RISKS

RI data identified the following contaminated media: air,surface and near-surface soils, and ground water.The RI data from each media was evaluated to select chemicals ofpotential concern (CPCs). CPCs are those chemicals present atthe Site most likely to be of concern to human health and theenvironment. CPCs were selected based on a comparison ofcontaminants found in each media to background and blank sampledata for each media. Table 14 (organics) and Table 15(inorganics) summarize the CPCs selected for each media. (See RI

8

Report, section 6.2, for tables summarizing RI data for eachmedia and CPCs for each media.)

Based on the results of the RI, U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA directedthe PRPs in calculating the risks that the Site would pose tohuman health and the environment if no remedial actions weretaken at the Site. This process is called the Baseline RiskAssessment (Risk Assessment). Risk assessment involves assessingthe toxicity, or degree of hazard, posed by the substances foundat the Site, and the routes by which humans and the environmentcould come into contact with these substances.

The primary sources of uncertainty in the preparation of a riskassessment are:

Environmental sampling and analysis, and selection ofchemicals

Exposure parameter estimation

Toxicological data

See the RI Report, Section 6.0, for specific information on theBaseline Risk Assessment prepared during the RI/FS.

A. HUMAN HEALTH RISKS

l. Exposure Assessment

Potential pathways by which human populations may be exposed tochemicals at or originating from the Site were identified underboth current use and potential future residential land-useconditions. Twelve complete exposure pathways were selected fordetailed evaluation under current use conditions. Current useconditions were determined, and are presented, in the RI Report.These pathways are:

Incidental ingestion of chemicals in surface soil bytrespassers on-site,

Dermal absorption of chemicals in surface soil bytrespassers on-site,

Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals emitted fromthe landfill by trespassers on-site,

Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals emitted fromthe landfill by nearby residents,

Incidental ingestion of chemicals in intermittentstream A and Great Miami River sediment by nearbyresidents,

Dermal absorption of chemicals in intermittent stream Aand Great Miami River sediment by nearby residents,

Incidental ingestion of chemicals in intermittentstream A and Great Miami River (backwater area) surfacewater by nearby residents,

Dermal absorption of chemicals in intermittent stream Aand Great Miami River (backwater area) surface water bynearby residents,

Ingestion of fish from the Great Miami River (backwaterarea) by nearby residents,

Ingestion of ground water by nearby residents,

Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals by nearbyresidents while showering, and

Dermal absorption of chemicals in ground water whileshowering by nearby residents.

Six complete exposure pathways were selected for detailedevaluation under potential future residential land-useconditions. Future residential land-use conditions weredetermined, and are presented, in the RI Report. These pathwaysare:

Incidental ingestion of surface soils by a hypotheticalon-site resident,

Dermal absorption of chemicals in surface soils by ahypothetical on-site resident,

Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals emitted fromthe landfill by a hypothetical on-site resident,

Ingestion of ground water by a hypothetical on-siteresident,

Inhalation of volatile organic chemicals by ahypothetical on-site resident while showering, and

Dermal absorption of chemicals in ground water whileshowering by a hypothetical on-site resident.

Representative exposure point concentrations were developed forthe CPCs and each media based on RI data. The chronic dailyintake (GDI) of each chemical was estimated to assess exposureassociated with the selected pathways. (See; RI Report, section6.4, for tables identifying the exposure point concentrations andresulting GDI for each CPC.) The exposures are quantified by

10

estimating the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) associated withpathways of concern. RME is a conservative estimate of potentialrisk.

2. Toxicity Assessment

Toxicity information was compiled for each chemical of potentialconcern. Individual chemicals were separated into two categoriesof chemical toxicity based on whether they exhibited principallynoncarcinogenic or carcinogenic effects. Next, the healtheffects of both categories of chemicals were evaluated. Table 16presents oral health effects criteria for the chemicals ofpotential concern. Table 17 presents inhalation health effectscriteria for the chemicals of potential concern.

3. Risk Characterization

Potential human health risks for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenicchemicals of potential concern were calculated for each pathwayidentified under current use and future residential land-useexposures. (See RI Report, section 6.5, for tables identifyingchemical-specific carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks forcurrent use and future residential land-use exposure pathways.)

The Risk Assessment estimates the excess risk, posed by the Site,of getting cancer, over and above the average risk. Cancer risksfrom various exposure pathways are assumed to be additive.Excess lifetime cancer risks less than IxlO"6 (one-in-onemillion) are considered acceptable by U.S. EPA. Excess lifetimecancer risks between IxlO"4 (one-in-ten thousand) to IxlO"6require U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA (the Agencies) to decide ifremediation is necessary to reduce risks and to what levelscleanup will occur. Excess lifetime cancer risks greater that1x10"* generally require remediation.

For noncarcinogens, potential risks are expressed as a hazardindex. A hazard index represents the sum of all ratios of thelevel of exposure of the contaminants found at the Site to thatof contaminants' various reference doses. In general, hazardindices which are less than one are not likely to be associatedwith any health risks.

Ground water chemical concentrations found in monitoring wellsadjacent to the landfill and in the Eldorado Plat area werecompared to U.S. EPA drinking water standards (maximumcontaminant levels (MCLs)). Three of the 19 chemicals of concernin monitoring wells adjacent to the landfill were detected atconcentrations which exceed MCLs. One of the five chemicals ofpotential concern in the Eldorado Plat monitoring wells exceededMCLs. See Table 18 for results.

11

Although RI data does not support a connection between groundwater contamination located on the Site and the ground watercontamination found in Needmore Road area, U.S. EPA requestedrisk calculations be performed on ground water data from theNeedmore Road area. These risk calculations are included in theRI Report, and will no longer be discussed in this section.

Under current use conditions the excess lifetime cancer riskswere within a 10"6 to 10"* cancer risk range for the followingpathways (Table 19):

inhalation of landfill gas emissions by nearbyresidents;

dermal absorption through contact with Great MiamiRiver surface water by nearby child/teenager residents;

dermal absorption through contact with Great MiamiRiver surface water by nearby adult residents;

dermal absorption through contact with Stream A surfacewater by a nearby adult resident;

inhalation of volatiles from showering with groundwater in the Eldorado Plat area (based on monitoringwell data);

ingestion of ground water in the Eldorado Plat area(based on monitoring well data);

Under current use conditions, the excess lifetime cancer risksexceeded 10"* for the following current use pathways:

ingestion of fish caught from the backwater area of theGreat Miami River;

Under current use conditions, the hazard index value was greaterthan one for the following current use pathways:

ingestion of fish caught from the backwater area of theGreat Miami River;

The current use risks shown in Table 19 have also been summarizedacross pathways for several potential receptor populations. Forthe combination of pathways shown in Table 19, the excesslifetime cancer risks exceeded a cancer risk level of 10"4 andthe hazard index value of one for residents who live in theEldorado Plat area. This receptor population's increasedcarcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk is based on the regularingestion of fish caught from the backwater area of the GreatMiami River.

12

Under future residential land-use conditions the excess lifetimecancer risks were within a 10"6 to 10"* cancer risk range for thefollowing future residential land-use pathways (Table 20):

Incidental ingestion of on-site surface soil;

dermal adsorption while showering with on-site groundwater (based on leachate data);

inhalation of landfill gas emissions; and

ingestion of on-site ground water (based on leachatedata).

Under future residential land-use conditions, the excess lifetimecancer risks did not exceed a 10"* cancer risk level for anyfuture residential land-use pathways.

Under future residential land-use conditions, the hazard indexvalue was greater than one for the following future residentialland-use pathway:

ingestion of on-site ground water (based on leachatedata)

The future residential land-use risks shown in Table 20 have alsobeen summarized across pathways for the hypothetical on-siteresident. For this potential receptor, the excess lifetimecancer risks was 10"* and the hazard index value was greater thanone.

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from thisSite, if not addressed by implementing the response actionselected in this ROD may present an imminent and substantialendangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

B. ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

An ecological assessment was conducted to evaluate the potentialrisks to non-human receptors associated with the Site. Potentialreceptors and exposure pathways were evaluated, including thepresence of endangered or threatened species in the area. Asite survey was conducted during the RI to identify terrestrialand aquatic receptors. The following indicator species andexposure pathways were selected for detailed evaluation: plantsexposed to surface soil, soil organisms (earthworms were used asindicator species), and aquatic organisms (fish and aquaticinvertebrates) in surface water and sediment of the Great MiamiRiver and intermittent Stream A. Based on available toxicityinformation [for four inorganic chemicals for plants based onKebata-Pendias and Pendias (1984) and Adriano (1986) and oneinorganic and one organic chemical for earthworms based on

13

Malecki et al. (1982) and van Rhee (1977)],, adverse effects toplants and earthworms from exposure to soil are unlikely tooccur. Ambient water quality criteria was equalled or exceededfor modeled concentrations of PCBs and DDT in the backwater areaof the Great Miami River. Ambient water quality criteria wasequalled or exceeded for measured concentrations of mercury inintermittent Stream A. Adverse impacts to most species of fishand aquatic invertebrates are, however, not expected to occur.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources had no records of rareor endangered species in the area of the Site. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service did not have endangered species informationspecific to the area where the Site is located; however, theIndiana Bat is an endangered species that occurs in numerouscounties in Ohio, including Montgomery County, and may be presentat the Site.

C. RISK-BASED CLEANUP LEVELS

Based on the above information, risk-based cleanup levels weredeveloped and are listed on Table 21. These cleanup levels werecalculated for each individual compound based on a 10"4 risk anda 10"6 risk. Risk-based cleanup levels were calculated usingU.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part B, datedDecember 1991.

Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in all mediawill be chemical-specific ARARs (see Section X.B.I). If multiplecontaminants are present in a media, and cleanup of individualcontaminants to ARARs result in a cumulative risk in excess of10"4 across a media, cleanup levels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across a media to 1x10"* or less (Table 21) .If chemical-specific ARARs do not exist for contaminants, cleanuplevels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across amedia to IxlO"4 or less (Table 21).

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from thisSite, if not addressed by implementing the response actionselected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantialendangerment to human health and the environment.

VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

A feasibility study was conducted to develop and evaluateremedial alternatives for the Powell Road Landfill. Remedialalternatives were assembled from applicable remedial technologyprocess options and were initially evaluated for effectiveness,irr.plementability and cost. The alternatives meeting thesecriteria were then evaluated and compared to the nine criteriarequired by the NCP (See Section VIII.). Treatability studieswere not performed during the RI or the FS, and are notanticipated to be a necessary part of implementation of any of

14

the alternatives for this Site. In addition to the remedialalternatives, the NCP requires that a no-action alternative beconsidered at every Site. The no-action alternative servesprimarily as a point of comparison for other alternatives.

Alternative 1Description: No Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $0Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $0Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $0Estimated Implementation Timeframe: None

This alternative does not take any action to remediate the Siteand does not consist of any treatment components, engineeringcontrols, monitoring, or institutional controls.

Alternative 2Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap withliner, consolidation of contaminated soils under landfill cap,ground water monitoring, flood protection, storm water controls,active gas collection with flare.

The treatment component of this alternative is landfill gastreatment. Landfill gas will be actively collected by gasextraction wells installed in the landfill and treated thermallyon-site via a flare. The estimated volume of landfill gases tobe treated is 850 cubic feet/minute (cfm).

The containment component is capping the landfill with animproved landfill cap with liner in accordance with Ohio EPASolid Waste Management Regulations (OAC-3745-27-11(G)). Thelandfill cap will prevent migration of contaminated soils intosurface water, reduce infiltration of precipitation into thelandfill thereby reducing generation of leachate and alsoreducing the percolation of leachate from the landfill intoground water.

Ground water contamination and leachate are not addressed in thisalternative.

The preliminary screening of alternatives indicated thatAlternative 2 does not provide overall protection of human healthand the environment, therefore, Alternative 2 was screened out ofthe detailed analysis of alternatives (see Feasibility Study fordetails). Costs were not developed for Alternative 2.

15

Common Component!Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, described below, include thefollowing common components:

1. Institutional ControlsInstitutional controls include fencing, deed restrictions, andwarning signs. Site access will be controlled by an 8-footchain-link fence topped with barbed wire. Warning signs will beposted to discourage unauthorized entry onto the Site. Deedrestrictions will prohibit disturbance of the Site and precludefuture development of the Site.

2. Flood ProtectionErosion control measures will be implemented during and afterconstruction to ensure the reduction of flood water velocityduring future flooding.

3. Storm Water ControlsStorm water control measures will be implemented and may consistof runoff control berms and rip-rap-lined discharge ditches.

4. Improved Landfill Cap with LinerAn improved landfill cap with liner will be constructed over thelandfill 'n accordance with the Ohio EPA's Solid Waste ManagementRegulati .-.3. The landfill consists of approximately 2.6 millioncubic yaras of material. The landfill cap will prevent migrationof contaminated soils into surface water, reduce infiltration ofprecipitation into the landfill thereby reducing generation ofleachate and also reducing the percolation of leachate from thelandfill into ground water.

5. Ground Water MonitoringA ground water monitoring network will be established on the Site(around the landfill and south of the river {Bldorado Platarea)). Existing monitoring wells, new monitoring wells, andselect residential wells may be used to monitor upgradient anddowngradient ground water conditions. Ground water monitoringwill serve two purposes: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of thetreatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks inground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to thelandfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (EldoradoPlat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow andpotential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.The specifics of the ground water monitoring system, includingfrequency and duration, will be determined during the remedialdesign.

6. Consolidation of Contaminated Soils Under Landfill CapApproximately 600 cubic yards of soil contaminated with DDTand/or PCBs will be excavated and consolidated on the top of thelandfill and then covered by the landfill cap. The areascurrently identified for excavation and consolidation are within

16

approximately 400 feet of the landfill (see Figure 9). TheResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposalrestrictions (LDRs) are not an ARAR for excavation of soilsaround the landfill and consolidation of the soils under thelandfill cap because the soils being removed are from one "areaof contamination (AOC)". This AOC consists of the landfill,surrounding contaminated soils, leachate and contaminated groundwater. Movement of waste within the AOC does not constituteplacement.

7. Active Gas Collection and Treatment with FlareAn estimated 850 cubic feet per minute of landfill gases will beactively collected with gas extraction wells and thermallytreated on-site via a flare. The system will be designed tocomply with the Clean Air Act, Section 101 and 40 CFR 52.

8. Leachate ExtractionLeachate will be extracted from the landfill at a rate sufficientto create a slight influx of ground water into the landfill andprevent migration of leachate out of the landfill. A series ofvertical extraction wells will be installed in the landfill andscreened in the permeable water-bearing zones. Leachate will becollected by a system of piping buried under the landfill cap andwill be temporarily stored in a holding tank prior to treatment.The leachate extraction system may remove up to 50,000 gallonsper day (gpd) of leachate from the landfill.

9. Leachate TreatmentThe leachate treatment system will be designed to remove volatileorganic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, and metals.The leachate treatment system may consist of a system ofbiological bulk organic removal and metals removal, withremaining volatile and semi-volatile organic removal by airstripping and activated carbon treatment, respectively. Detailsof the leachate treatment system will be identified during theremedial design. Leachate will be treated to levels which willallow discharge of effluent to the river under the NPDES permitrequirements (see discussion below). The leachate treatmentsystem could remove an estimated 1,100 Ibs. total of VOCs fromthe leachate.

10. DischargeTreated leachate effluent will be discharged to the Great MiamiRiver. Discharge will comply with all Federal and State of OhioNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)requirements (40 CFR 122.44, Clean Water Act Section 208, 40 CFR125, 40 CFR 136, Ohio Revised Code). NPDES requires compliancewith state and federal water quality standards, whichever is morestringent, and regulates discharge into surface water.

17

Alternative 3

Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap withliner, consolidation of contaminated soils under landfill cap,ground water monitoring, flood protection, storm water controls,active gas collection with flare, leachate extraction, on-siteleachate treatment, discharge to river.

Estimated Capital Cost: $11,463,000Estimated Annual O&M Costs: $ 398,000Estimated Present-Worth Costs: $16,820,000Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 years

This alternative consists of all the common elements describedabove and addresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, andleachate. Existing ground water contamination will not beactively remediated. Ground water monitoring will evaluate theeffectiveness of the treatment/containment components of theremedy to reduce risks in ground water.

Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in each media,ground water, leachate, and air, will be chemical-specific ARARs(see Section X.B.I.). If multiple contaminants are present in amedia, and cleanup of individual contaminants to ARARs result ina cumulative risk in excess of 10"* across a media, cleanuplevels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across amedia to 1x10"* or less (Table 21). If chemical-specific ARARsdo not exist for contaminants, cleanup levels of contaminantswill be risk-based and cumulative across a media to 1x10"* orless (Table 21). The point of compliance for ground watercleanup levels will be at the boundary of the landfill. Groundwater cleanup levels shall be achieved at and beyond the landfillboundary. The point of compliance for cleanup levels of landfillgas emissions shall be the fence surrounding the landfill.

Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare andleachate treatment. Landfill gases will be actively collectedwith gas extraction wells and thermally treated on-site via aflare. Leachate will be extracted from the landfill at a ratesufficient to create a slight influx of ground water into thelandfill and prevent migration of leachate out of the landfill.A series of vertical extraction wells will be installed in thelandfill and screened in the permeable water-bearing zones.Leachate will be collected by a system of piping buried under thelandfill cap and will be temporarily stored in a holding tankprior to treatment.

The containment components are consolidation of contaminatedsoils on top of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap withliner. Contaminated soils will be excavated and consolidated ontop of the landfill followed by construction of an improvedlandfill cap with liner. The landfill cap will comply with Ohio

18

EPA's Solid Waste Management Regulations.

Alternative 4Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap withliner, consolidation of contaminated soils under landfill cap,ground water monitoring, flood protection, storm water controls,active gas collection with flare, leachate extraction, on-siteleachate treatment, extraction of ground water from the shallowaquifer adjacent to the landfill, on-site ground water treatment,discharge to river.


This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 3with the addition of ground water extraction from the shallowaquifer adjacent to the landfill, on-site ground water treatment,and discharge of treated effluent to the river. This alternativeaddresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, leachate andcontaminated ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill. Existing ground water contamination in the primaryaquifer, adjacent to the landfill and south of the river(Eldorado Plat area), will not be actively remediated. Groundwater monitoring will evaluate the effectiveness of thetreatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risksposed by existing ground water contamination.

Final cleanup levels for individual contaminants in each mediaare the same as discussed in Alternative 3.

Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare andleachate treatment, as discussed in Alternative 3 above, andground water extraction from the shallow aquifer and ground watertreatment on-site. An estimated 400,000 gallons of ground waterwill be pumped per day from extraction wells in the shallowaquifer adjacent to the landfill, treated on-site, and effluentdischarged to the river (in compliance with all NPDESrequirements).

The containment components are consolidation of contaminatedsoils on top of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap withliner, as discussed above in Alternative 3.

19

Alternative 5Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap withliner, treatment of contaminated soils, consolidation of treatedsoils under landfill cap, ground water monitoring, floodprotection, storm water controls, active gas collection withflare, leachate extraction, on-site leachate treatment,extraction of ground water from the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill, on-site ground water treatment,discharge to river.


This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 4with the addition of ground water extraction from the primaryaquifer adjacent to the landfill and treatment of contaminatedsoils prior to placement under the landfill cap. Thisalternative addresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, leachate,and contaminated ground water in the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill. Existing ground water contamination inthe primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), willnot be actively remediated. Ground water monitoring willevaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containmentcomponents of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water.


Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare,leachate treatment, and ground water treatment, as discussedabove in Alternative 4, and treatment of contaminated soils priorto consolidation under the landfill cap. An estimated 600 cubicyards of contaminated soils will be treated to dewater, stabilizeand solidify the contaminated soils prior to placement under thelandfill cap. This alternative also includes the extraction ofground water from the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill.An estimated 900,000 gallons of ground water will be pumped perday from extraction wells in the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill, treated on-site and effluent dischargedto the river {in compliance with all NPDES requirements).

The containment components are consolidation of treated soils ontop of the landfill, and an improved landfill cap with liner asdiscussed above in Alternative 3.

20

Alternative 6Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap withliner, treatment of contaminated soils, consolidation of treatedsoils under landfill cap, ground water monitoring, floodprotection, storm water controls, active gas collection withflare, leachate extraction, on-site leachate treatment, groundwater extraction from the primary aquifer south of the river(Eldorado Plat area), on-site ground water treatment, dischargeto river.


This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 3with the addition of ground water extraction from the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), on-site groundwater treatment, discharge of treated effluent to the river, andtreatment of contaminated soils prior to consolidation under thelandfill cap. This alternative addresses landfill gas,contaminated soils, leachate and contaminated ground water southof the river (Eldorado Plat area). Existing ground watercontamination in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to thelandfill will not be actively remediated. Ground watermonitoring will evaluate the effectiveness of thetreatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks inground water.


Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare,leachate treatment, ground water treatment, and treatment ofcontaminated soils prior to consolidation under the landfill capas discussed above in Alternative 5. The ground water treatmentcomponent of this alternative includes the extraction of groundwater from the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Platarea). An estimated 250,000 gallons of ground water will bepumped per day from extraction wells in the primary aquifer southof the river (Eldorado Plat area), treated on-site and effluentdischarged to the river (in compliance with all NPDESrequirements). Ground water extracted from the primary aquifersouth of the river (Eldorado Plat area) will be piped across theriver for on-site treatment.


21

Alternative 7Description: Institutional controls, improved landfill cap withliner, treatment of contaminated soils, consolidation of treatedsoils under landfill cap, ground water monitoring, floodprotection, storm water controls, active gas collection withflare, leachate extraction, on-site leachate treatment,extraction of ground water from the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill and from the primary aquifer south ofthe river (Eldorado Plat area), on-site ground water treatment,discharge to river.


This alternative consists of all the components of Alternative 5with the addition of ground water extraction' from the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Thisalternative addresses landfill gas, contaminated soils, leachate,contaminated ground water in the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill, and contaminated ground water in theprimary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Groundwater monitoring will evaluate the effectiveness of thetreatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks inground water.


Treatment components include landfill gas treatment via flare,leachate treatment, ground water treatment, and treatment ofcontaminated soils prior to consolidation under the landfill capas discussed above in Alternative 5. This alternative includesthe extraction of ground water from the primary aquifer south ofthe river (Eldorado Plat area). Ground water treatment for thisalternative includes extraction of an estimated 1,150,000 gallonsof ground water per day from extraction wells in the shallow andprimary aquifers adjacent to the landfill, and extraction wellsin the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area),on-site treatment and discharge of effluent to the river (incompliance with all NPDES requirements). Ground water extractedfrom the primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)will be piped across the river for on-site treatment.


22

VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The remedial alternatives developed in the FS were evaluated onthe basis of the nine evaluation criteria listed below. Theadvantages and disadvantages of each alternative were thencompared to determine which alternative provides the best balanceamong these nine criteria. The nine evaluation criteria are setforth in the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part300.430.

THRESHOLD CRITERIA:

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Overall protection of human health and the environment addresseswhether a remedial action provides adequate protection of humanhealth and the environment and describes how risks posed througheach exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlledthrough treatment, engineering controls, or institutionalcontrols.

Alternative 1 does not meet this criteria because it does nottake any action to protect human health and the environment anddoes not eliminate, reduce or control risks.

Alternative 2 does not eliminate, reduce or control risksassociated with ground water contamination and leachate migrationinto ground water. Alternative 2 was determined not to beprotective of human health and the environment and was screenedout from the detailed analysis of alternatives. Alternative 2will no longer be discussed in this document.

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 utilize institutional controls toreduce risks posed to trespassers by fencing the Site and postingwarning signs, and reduce the risks posed to potential futureusers of the Site by imposing deed restrictions on the landfillproperty.

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 utilize numerous source controls:landfill cap; landfill gas collection and treatment; leachatecollection and treatment; and consolidation of soils underlandfill cap. The risks posed by inhalation of landfill gasesare reduced by collecting and treating landfill gases. The risksposed by contaminated ground water will be reduced by extractingand treating leachate from the landfill, the source of groundwater contamination. The landfill cap will reduce ground waterrisks by reducing infiltration of precipitation into thelandfill, thereby reducing generation of leachate, and alsoreducing the percolation of leachate from the landfill intoground water. The risks posed by ingestion of fish are based onthe potential migration of contaminated soils into surface waterand sediment. These risks will be controlled and reduced by

23

excavating and consolidating contaminated soils under thelandfill cap. Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 also provide additionalreduction of these risks by treating contaminated soils on-siteto dewater, stabilize and solidify the soils prior toconsolidation under the landfill cap.

Alternative 3 does not utilize treatment to actively reduce risksassociated with existing ground water contamination. Severalcomponents of this alternative, however, will interact to addressand decrease ground water contamination and achieve cleanuplevels. The landfill cap will reduce infiltration ofprecipitation into the landfill, thereby reducing generation ofleachate, and also reducing the percolation of leachate from thelandfill into ground water. Leachate in the landfill and groundwater in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill are theprimary sources of ground water contamination identified in theprimary aquifer adjacent to the landfill and south of the river(Eldorado Plat area). Extraction and treatment of leachate fromthe landfill will address one of the primary sources of groundwater contamination and risks associated with ground watercontamination. Once the landfill cap is constructed and thelandfill gas and leachate extraction/treatment systems areoperational, a minimum of 6 years will be required to decreaseground water contamination and achieve ground water cleanupLevels in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to thelandfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (EldoradoPlat area). Ground water monitoring will serve two purposes: l)evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containmentcomponents of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallowand primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitorfor changes in ground water flow and potential migration ofcontaminated ground water from the Site.

Alternatives 4, 5, 6 and 7 utilize ground water treatmenttechnologies to further reduce risks posed by existing groundwater contamination.

Alternative 4 reduces risks associated with ground watercontamination by extracting and treating ground water from theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill. Existing ground watercontamination in the primary aquifer, adjacent to the landfilland south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), will not be activelyremediated. Several components of this alternative, however,will interact to address and decrease ground water contaminationand achieve cleanup levels. The landfill cap will reduceinfiltration of precipitation into the landfill, thereby reducinggeneration of leachate, and also reducing the percolation ofleachate from the landfill into ground water. Leachate andground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill arethe primary sources of ground water contamination identified inthe primary aquifer, adjacent to the landfill and south of the

24

river (Eldorado Plat area). Extraction and treatment of leachatefrom the landfill and ground water from the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill will address the primary sources ofground water contamination and risks posed by ground watercontamination in the shallow aquifer (adjacent to the landfill).Once the landfill cap is constructed and the landfill gas,leachate, and ground water extraction/treatment systems areoperational, a minimum of 6 years will be required to decreaseground water contamination and achieve ground water cleanuplevels in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to thelandfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (EldoradoPlat area). Ground water monitoring will serve two purposes: 1)evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containmentcomponents of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallowand primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitorfor changes in ground water flow and potential migration ofcontaminated ground water from the Site.

Alternative 5 reduces risks associated with ground watercontamination by extracting and treating ground water in theshallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill. Existingground water contamination in the primary aquifer south of theriver (Eldorado Plat area) will not be actively remediated.Several components of this alternative, however, will interact toaddress and decrease ground water contamination and achievecleanup levels. The landfill cap will reduce infiltration ofprecipitation into the landfill, thereby reducing generation ofleachate, and also reducing the percolation of leachate from thelandfill into ground water. Leachate and ground water in theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill are the primary sourcesof ground water contamination identified in the primary aquifer,adjacent to the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Platarea). Extraction and treatment of leachate from the landfilland ground water from the shallow and primary aquifers adjacentto the landfill will address the primary sources of ground watercontamination and risks posed by ground water contamination inthe shallow aquifer (adjacent to the landfill). Once thelandfill cap is constructed and the landfill gas, leachate, andground water extraction/treatment systems are operational, aminimum of 6 years will be required to decrease ground watercontamination and achieve ground water cleanup levels in theshallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and theprimary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Groundwater monitoring will serve two purposes: 1) evaluate theeffectiveness of the treatment/containment components of theremedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallow and primaryaquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer southof the river (Eldorado Plat area)); and, 2) monitor for changesin ground water flow and potential migration of contaminatedground water from the Site.

25

Alternative 6 reduces risks associated with ground watercontamination by extracting ground water from the primary aquifersouth of the river (Eldorado Plat area) and treating ground wateron-site. Existing ground water contamination adjacent to thelandfill, in the shallow and primary aquifers, will not beactively remediated. Several components of this alternative,however, will interact to address and decrease ground watercontamination and achieve cleanup levels. The landfill cap willreduce infiltration of precipitation into the landfill, therebyreducing generation of leachate, and also reducing thepercolation of leachate from the landfill into ground water.Leachate and ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill are the primary sources of ground water contaminationidentified in the primary aquifer, adjacent to the landfill andsouth of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Extraction andtreatment of leachate from the landfill will address the one ofthe primary sources of ground water contamination and risks posedby ground water contamination in the shallow aquifer (adjacent tothe landfill). Once the landfill cap is constructed and thelandfill gas, leachate, and ground water extraction/treatmentsystems are operational, a minimum of 8 years will be required todecrease ground water contamination and achieve ground watercleanup levels in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent tothe landfill and in the primary aquifer south of the river(Eldorado Plat area). Ground water monitoring will serve twopurposes: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of thetreatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks inground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to thelandfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (EldoradoPlat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow andpotential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.

Alternative 7 reduces risks associated with ground watercontamination by extracting ground water, in the shallow andprimary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifersouth of the river (Eldorado Plat area), and treating groundwarer on-site. Leachate and ground water in the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill are the primary sources of ground watercontamination identified in the primary aquifer, adjacent to thelandfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Extractionand treatment of leachate from the landfill and ground water fromthe shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and theprimary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) willaddress the primary sources of ground water contamination andrisks posed by ground water contamination in the shallow aquifer(adjacent to the landfill). Once the landfill cap is constructedand the landfill gas, leachate, and ground waterextraction/treatment systems are operational, a minimum of 8years will be required to decrease ground water contamination andachieve ground water cleanup levels in the shallow and primaryaquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer southof the river (Eldorado Plat area). Ground water monitoring will

26

serve two purposes: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of thetreatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks inground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to thelandfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (EldoradoPlat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow andpotential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.

2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirements (ARARs)

Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards of control,and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitationspromulgated under Federal or State environmental or facilitysiting law that specifically address a hazardous substance,pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or othercircumstance at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriaterequirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control,and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitationspromulgated under Federal or State environmental siting law that,while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant,contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance ata CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficientlysimilar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use iswell suited to this particular Site.

Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedial action willmeet all requirements of federal and state environmental laws andregulations and/or provide a basis for1a waiver from any of theselaws. Federal and State ARARs are divided into threecategories: chemical-specific, action-specific, and location-specific .

Chemical-Specific ARARs

Federal: Table 22 identifies the federal chemical-specificARARs. The ground water cleanup levels for Alternatives 3, 4, 5,6, and 7 will comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)(Note: only non-zero SDWA levels are potential ARARs) and RCRAground water ARARs by treating leachate and/or ground watertreatment. Ground water monitoring will continue untilcontamination decreases and cleanup levels are achieved.Alternative 3 will rely on treatment/containment components ofthe remedy to decrease ground water contamination and achievecleanup levels in ground water adjacent to the landfill (shallowand primary aquifers) and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)(primary aquifer). Alternative 4 will treat ground waterextracted from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill andrely on treatment/containment components of the remedy todecrease ground water contamination and achieve cleanup levels inground water in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill andthe primary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area).Alternative 5 will treat ground water extracted from the shallow

27

and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and rely ontreatment/containment components of the remedy to decrease groundwater contamination and achieve cleanup levels in the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Alternative 6will treat ground water extracted from the primary aquifer southof the river (Eldorado Plat area) and rely ontreatment/containment components of the remedy to decrease groundwater contamination and achieve cleanup levels in the shallow andprimary aquifers adjacent to the landfill. Alternative 7 willtreat ground water extracted from the shallow and primaryaquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer southof the river (Eldorado Plat area) to achieve ground water cleanuplevels.

State of Ohio: Table 23 identifies the State of Ohio chemical-specific ARARs. Surface water standards will be met byAlternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 by consolidation of contaminatedsoils under the landfill cap (Alternatives 3 and 4) or treatmentand consolidation of contaminated soils under the landfill cap(Alternatives 5, 6, and 7), thereby reducing the potential ofmigration of contaminated soils into surface water.

Location-Specific ARARs

Table 24 identifies the State of Ohio location-specific ARARs.Federal location-specific ARARs are discussed in Section X. Allalternatives, except Alternative l, will meet location-specificARARs. Location-specific ARARs include RCRA requirements for asite in a 100-year floodplain, minimizing adverse impacts on awetland, and minimizing potential harm to and restoration of thefloodplain.

Action-Specific ARARs

Federal action-specific ARARs are discussed in Section X. Stateof Ohio action-specific ARARs are identified on Table 25. Allthe Alternatives will comply with the Federal and State of Ohio(Ohio Revised Code (ORC) and Ohio Administrative Code (OAC))action-specific ARARs. These ARARs include: Clean Water Act,OAC, and ORC requirements for discharge of effluent to a river;Clean Air Act, OAC, and ORC requirements for excavation of soilson-site and gas collection and treatment; ORC and OACrequirements for leachate removal and treatment; and ORC and OACrequirements for ground water monitoring.

28

PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA:

3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expectedresidual risk and the ability of a remedial action to maintainreliable protection of human health and the environment overtime, once cleanup levels have been met.

Alternative l does not reduce risks and will not provide long-term effectiveness or permanence.

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 provide long-term effectivenessand permanence by utilizing source controls (landfill cap,consolidation of soils under landfill cap, landfill gascollection and treatment, leachate extraction and treatment)which will result in a minimal residual risk. The landfill capis considered to be an effective long-term technology to reducemigration from the landfill, however long-term maintenance willbe required. Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 provide a more permanentsoils remedial action by treating soils prior to placement underthe landfill cap.

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 rely, to a certain degree, ontreatment/containment components of the alternatives to decreaseground water contamination and achieve cleanup levels in groundwater. Long term ground water monitoring will be required foralternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 to: 1) evaluate the effectiveness ofthe treatment/containment components of the remedy to reducerisks in ground water (shallow and primary aquifers adjacent tothe landfill and the primary aquifer south of the river (EldoradoPlat area)); and, 2) monitor for changes in ground water flow andpotential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.Long-term ground water monitoring will be required foralternative 7 to monitor for changes in ground water flow andpotential migration of contaminated ground water from the Site.

4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatmentrefers to an assessment of the degree to which a remedial actionutilizes treatment to address the principal threats to humanhealth and the environment at the Site. Details of the treatmentsystems will be identified during the remedial design.

Alternative 1 provides no treatment and therefore no reduction incontaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV).

Landfill GasesAlternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 reduce toxicity, mobility, andvolume of contamination in landfill gases through treatment.

29

LeachateAlternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 reduce toxicity, mobility, andvolume of leachate contamination through treatment.

SoilsAlternatives 5, 6 and 7 reduce mobility, but not toxicity orvolume, of soil contaminants through treatment prior toconsolidation.

Ground WaterAlternative 3 does not utilize treatment to reduce TMV of groundwater contamination. Alternatives 4, 5, 6, and 7 reduce TMV ofground water contamination through treatment, but eachalternative treats different areas of ground water contamination(shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill andprimary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)).Alternative 4 utilizes treatment to reduce TMV of ground watercontamination in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.Alternative 5 utilizes treatment to reduce TMV of ground watercontamination in the shallow and primary aquifers adjacent to thelandfill. Both Alternatives 4 and 5 will reduce TMV of groundwater contamination in the primary aquifer south of the river(Eldorado Plat area). Alternative 6 utilizes treatment to reduceTMV of ground water contamination in the primary aquifer south ofthe river (Eldorado Plat area). Alternative 7 utilizes treatmentto reduce TMV of ground water in the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer south of theriver (Eldorado Plat area).

5. Short-Term Effectiveness

Addresses the potential adverse effects that implementation of aremedial action may have on human health and the environment,i.e., effects to the community, workers and environment duringconstruction and before cleanup levels are achieved. Time untilprotection is achieved is also evaluated.

Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) poses no potentialadverse short-term effects to on-site workers. Alternatives 3,4, 5, 6, and 7 may pose risks to workers installing landfill gasextraction wells and flares, workers excavating and consolidatingcontaminated soils, and workers installing the landfill cap.These risks will be negligible once gas extraction wells areinstalled and operating, contaminated soils are excavated andconsolidated, and the cap is installed. Risks may be posed toworkers involved with installing institutional controls, floodprotection, and storm water controls. Workers involved withroutine ground water monitoring may be exposed to contaminatedground water until cleanup levels are reached. Alternatives 5, 6and 7 may pose risks to workers treating contaminated soils priorto their placement under the landfill cap. Alternatives 3, 4, 5,6, and 7 may pose risks to workers through direct contact with

30

leachate/ground water while installing leachate extraction wells,ground water extraction wells, and leachate and ground watertreatment systems.

These potential adverse effects will be controlled byimplementation of engineering controls, through the use ofpersonal protective equipment, and by the implementation of ahealth and safety plan during construction.

Installation of the landfill gas wells may pose risks to thecommunity. Risks will be minimized by installing the wellsduring suitable weather conditions.

Alternatives 6 and 7 may pose short-term risks to the residentsof Eldorado Plat due to dust and noise generated during drillingand pipeline construction of the off-site ground water extractionwell system.

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, has no timeframe toachieve protection. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 should attaincleanup levels in approximately 6 years. Alternatives 6 and 7should attain cleanup levels in approximately 8 years.

6. Implementability

Implementability addresses the technical and administrativefeasibility of a remedial action, including the availability ofservices and materials.

All alternatives are expected to be technically feasible andadministratively implementable. Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 areimplementable; however, the soil treatment component to beimplemented prior to consolidation under the landfill cap, commonto these alternatives, is more complex to administer.

The leachate extraction and treatment system component ofAlternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is implementable. Alternatives 4,5, 6 and 7 are more difficult to implement than Alternative 3 dueto the installation and operation of the on-site ground waterextraction and treatment system. Alternatives 6 and 7 are themost complex alternatives due to the construction of a pipelinecrossing the river to transport ground water extracted from theprimary aquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), north tothe on-site treatment system.

7. Cost

Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenancecosts for a remedial action, and also is expressed as net presentworth cost.

31

Alternative 1

No Cost

Alternative 3


Alternative 4


Alternative 5


Alternative 6


Alternative 7


Alternative 1 does not entail any cost at the present time, butmay result in the need for costly remediation in the future.Alternative 7 is estimated to be the most expensive alternative,followed by (from most to least expensive) Alternatives 5, 4, 6,and 3.

32

MODIFYING CRITERIA:

8. State Acceptance

State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of theRI/FS and Proposed Plan, the State of Ohio concurs, opposes, orhas no comment on the selected remedial action.

The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedial action.

9. Community Acceptance

Community acceptance addresses the community's acceptance of thepreferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan based oncomments received during the public comment period. TheResponsiveness Summary, attached to this ROD, containssignificant comments received during the public comment periodand the Agencies' response to those comments.

IX. SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION

The U.S. EPA has selected Alternative 4 for the final remediationof the Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site.

Alternative 4 includes:

institutional controlsimproved landfill cap with linerexcavation of contaminated soilsconsolidation of contaminated soils under landfill capground water monitoringflood protectionstorm water controlsactive landfill gas collection with flareleachate extractionon-site leachate treatmentextraction of ground water from the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfillon-site ground water treatmentdischarge of treated ground water and leachate to river


Contaminated soils will be consolidated on the landfill and alandfill cap with liner will contain the landfill andcontaminated soils. The landfill cap will prevent migration ofcontaminated soils into surface water, reduce infiltration ofprecipitation into the landfill thereby reducing generation of

33

leachate and also reducing the percolation of leachate from thelandfill into ground water. Leachate will be extracted from thelandfill and treated on-site. Ground water will be extractedfrom the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill and treated on-site.

The selected remedy will address the two source areas for groundwater contamination at the Site; leachate in the landfill andground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.The geology of the Site indicates that contamination in theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill could migrate under theGreat Miami River and this aquifer is a possible source ofcontamination identified in the primary aquifer adjacent to thelandfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Adjacentto the landfill, the shallow aquifer is separated from theprimary aquifer under the southern portion of the landfill andunder the river, therefore, leachate in the landfill and groundwater contamination in the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill are the probable sources of ground water contaminationidentified in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill andsouth of the river (Eldorado Plat area). The selected remedywill not actively remediate ground water contamination identifiedin the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill or ground watercontamination identified south of the river (Eldorado Plat area).By extracting and treating leachate from the landfill and groundwater from the shallow aquifer, the source of ground watercontamination identified in the primary aquifer (adjacent to thelandfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) will bereduce and ground water contamination is expected to decrease andcleanup levels will be achieved. Ground water contaminationshould decrease and achieve cleanup levels in an estimated 6years.

Ground water monitoring is an essential part of this remedy. Aground water monitoring network will be established on the Site(around the landfill and south of the river (Eldorado Platarea)). Ground water monitoring will serve two purposes: 1)evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containmentcomponents of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water (shallowand primary aquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area); and, 2) monitorfor changes in ground water flow and potential migration ofcontaminated ground water from the Site. If ground watermonitoring identifies that ground water contamination is notdecreasing and cleanup levels are not being achieved, the remedywill be reevaluated. The remedial design will develop thespecific details of the ground water monitoring network,including the number and location of wells necessary to monitorground water. The specifics of the ground water monitoringsystem, including frequency and duration, will be determinedduring the remedial design.

34

Off-site ground water contamination identified in the NeedmoreRoad area during the RI, could not be connected to contaminationfound on the Site. However, if in the future a connection isfound which identifies PRL as the source of contamination in theNeedmore Road area, either a ROD amendment or an Explanation ofSignificant Differences will be prepared, as appropriate.

The remedial design will identify the appropriate number andlocation of wells to collect/extract landfill gas, leachate, andground water.

Cleanup levels to be achieved by the selected remedial actionwill be chemical-specific ARARs (see Section X.B.I.). Ifmultiple contaminants are present in the media {i.e. groundwater), and cleanup of individual contaminants to ARARs result ina cumulative risk in excess of 10"* across a media, cleanuplevels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across amedia to IxlO"4 or less (Table 21) . If chemical-specific ARARsdo not exist for contaminants, cleanup levels of contaminantswill be risk-based and cumulative across a media to 1x10"* orless (Table 21). The point of compliance for ground watercleanup levels will be the boundary of the landfill. Groundwater cleanup levels shall be achieved at and beyond thelandfill. The point of compliance for cleanup levels of landfillgas emissions shall be the fence surrounding the landfill area.

The selected remedial action is expected to be the final responsefor the Site. Because this remedial action will result inhazardous substances remaining on-site, a review will beconducted within five years after commencement of remedial actionto insure that the remedial action continues to provide adequateprotection of human health and the environment.

X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The U.S. EPA believes that Alternative 4 meets the thresholdcriteria and provides the best protection with respect to thecriteria used to evaluate the alternatives (National ContingencyPlan 40 CFR Part 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(A-F).

A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative 4 utilizes institutional controls to reduce risksposed to trespassers by fencing the Site and posting warningsigns, and reduces the risks posed to potential future users ofthe Site by imposing deed restrictions on the landfill property.

Numerous source controls are utilized by Alternative 4: landfillcap; landfill gas collection and treatment; leachate extractionand treatment; and excavation and consolidation of contaminatedsoils under the landfill cap. The risks posed by inhalation of

35

landfill gases are reduced by collecting and treating landfillgases.

The interaction of several components of Alternative 4 willdecrease ground water contamination and achieve cleanup levels.The landfill cap will reduce infiltration of precipitation intothe landfill, thereby reducing generation of leachate, and alsoreducing the percolation of leachate from the landfill intoground water. Extraction and treatment of leachate from thelandfill and ground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent tothe landfill will address the primary sources of ground watercontamination and risks posed by ground water contamination inthe shallow aquifer (adjacent to the landfill). Leachate andground water in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill arethe primary sources of ground water contamination identified inthe primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill and south of theriver (Eldorado Plat area). Once the landfill cap is constructedand the landfill gas, leachate, and ground waterextraction/treatment systems are operational, a minimum of 6years will be required to decrease ground water contamination andachieve ground water cleanup levels in the shallow and primaryaquifers adjacent to the landfill and in the primary aquifersouth of the river (Eldorado Plat area).

The risks posed by ingestion of fish are based on the potentialmigration of contaminated soils into surface water and sediment.These risks will be controlled and reduced by excavating andconsolidating contaminated soils under the landfill cap.

Cleanup levels to be achieved by the selected remedial actionwill be chemical-specific ARARs (Table 22). If multiplecontaminants are present in the media (i.e. ground water), andcleanup of individual contaminants to ARARs result in acumulative risk in excess of 10"* across a media, cleanup levelsof contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative across a mediato ixlO"4 or less (Table 21). If chemical-specific ARARs do notexist for contaminants, cleanup levels of contaminants will berisk-based and cumulative across a media to 1x10"* or less (Table21) .

Potential adverse short-term risks posed to on-site workers willbe controlled by implementation of engineering controls. Nocross-media impacts will be caused by implementation ofAlternative 4.

B. Compliance with ARARs

Alternative 4 will meet or attain all applicable or relevant andappropriate Federal or State requirements (ARARs) and will beimplemented in a manner consistent with those laws. It isimportant to note that on-site actions are required to complywith ARARs, but must comply only with the substantive parts of

36

the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. Off-siteactions must comply only with applicable requirements, but mustcomply fully with both substantive and administrativerequirements. For example, at the Powell Road Landfill Site, thedischarge to the Great Miami River of extracted ground water andextracted leachate which has been treated will be an off-sitedischarge, and will therefore be subject to both the substantiveand administrative requirements of Federal and State lawpromulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act National PollutantDischarge Elimination System. The chemical-specific, location-specific and action-specific ARARs for the selected remedialaction for the PRL are identified below.

1. Chemical-Specific ARARs

Chemical specific ARARs regulate the release to the environmentof specific substances having certain chemical characteristics.Chemical-specific ARARs typically determine the extent of clean-up at a Site. For the PRL site, these are:

a. Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs

Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs and MCLGs - Maximum ContaminantLevels (MCLs) and, to a certain extent, non-zero MaximumContaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), the Federal Drinking WaterStandards promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)are applicable to municipal drinking water supplies servicing 25or more people. MCLGs are relevant and appropriate when thestandard is set at a level greater than zero (for non-carcinogens) ; otherwise, MCLs are relevant and appropriate. Atthe Powell Road Landfill (PRL) site, MCLs and MCLGs are notapplicable, but are relevant and appropriate since the aquifer inwhich the PRL site is located is a sole-source aquifer fordrinking water for the City of Dayton. The point of compliancefor the Federal drinking water standards is at the boundary ofthe landfilled waste and throughout the contaminated ground waterplume associated with the PRL site.

Clean Air Act (40 CFR Part 50) - The Clean Air Act requirementsinclude the TSP standard for air discharges. This requirement isapplicable to the PRL site because the gas extraction andtreatment, leachate treatment, excavation and consolidation ofcontaminated soils, and various other treatment methods which arepart of this remedy are potential sources of fugitive dust,particulate, and/or VOCs.

See Table 22 for a list of additional Federal chemical-specificARARs.

b. State Chemical-Specific ARARs

See Table 23 for a list of the State of Ohio Chemical-Specific

37

AJRARs

2. Location-Specific ARARs

Location-specific ARARs are those requirements that relate to thegeographic position of the Site. For the PRL site, these are:

a. Federal Location-Specific ARARs

The Clean Water Act Section 404 - This section of the Actregulates the discharge of dredge and fill materials at sites towaters of the United States. These regulations are applicable tothe PRL site, since there are wetlands located on the site.

Wetland Management Executive Order 11990 - This order requiresfederal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- andshort-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction ormodification of wetlands. This requirement is applicable to thePRL site since there are wetlands located on the Site.

RCRA location standards 40 CFR Part 264.18 - These standardsspecify that a facility located in a flood plain must bedesigned, constructed, operated, and maintained to preventwashout of hazardous wastes by a 100-year flood plain. Thisrequirement is applicable to the PRL site if a hazardous wastemanagement unit is created on-site as a result of air strippingor other on-site treatment, these standards are applicable to thePRL because the site is located in a 100-year flood plain.

Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 - This order requiresminimization of potential harm to or within flood plains and theavoidance of long- and short-term adverse impacts associated withthe occupancy and modification of flood plains. This order isapplicable to the PRL site since the PRL site is located within aflood plain.

b. State Location-Specific ARARs

See Table 24 for a list of the State of Ohio location-specificARARs.

3. Action-Specific ARARs

Action-Specific ARARs are requirements that define acceptabletreatment and disposal procedures for hazardous substances. Forthe PRL site, these are:

a. Federal Action-Specific ARARs

RCRA Subtitle C Standards for Owners and Operators of HazardousWaste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (40 CFR Part 264)

38

- These requirements govern the owners and operators of hazardouswaste treatment storage and disposal facilities. Theserequirements are applicable to the PRL site if a hazardous wastemanagement unit is created on-site as a result of air strippingor other on-site treatment methods.

Clean Air Act Standards for the Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans (40 CFR Part 52) - These requirements governthe approval and promulgation of implementation plans. Theserequirements are applicable to the PRL site because of variousaspects of the remedy for the PRL site including excavation andconsolidation of contaminated soils, gas collection andtreatment, and the use of several treatments methods at the site.

Toxic Substances Control Act Standards for PolychlorinatedBiphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution inCommerce and Use Prohibitions (40 CFR Part 761) - Theserequirements govern the manufacturing, processing, distributionin commerce and use prohibitions for polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs). These requirements will be applicable to the PRL site ifadditional testing is done of the contaminated soils to beexcavated and consolidated as part of the PRL site remedy isdone, and the soils are found to exceed a PCS level of 50 partsper million.

Clean Air Act Air Quality and Emission Limitations (Clean Air ActSection 110). These requirements relate to air quality andemission limitations. These requirements are applicable to thePRL site due to various aspects of the remedy for the PRL siteincluding excavation and consolidation of contaminated soils, gascollection and treatment, and the use of several treatmentmethods at the Site.

b. State Action-Specific ARARs

See Table 25 for a list of the State of Ohio action-specificARARs.

4. To Be Considered

a. Federal to be Considered

"Control of Air Emissions from Superfund Air Strippers atSuperfund Groundwater Sites" (June 15, 1989) (OSWER Directive9355.0-28) - This guidance indicates that sources that needcontrols are those with actual emissions rates in excess of 3Ibs/hr, or 15 Ibs/day, or a calculated rate of 10 tons/year(T/yr) of total VOCs. This guidance should be considered at thePRL site if one of the treatment methods used as part of theremedy for the PRL site is a ground-water-pump-and-treattechnique used together with air strippers, and if the emissionrates at the PRL exceed these rates, and since the PRL is located

39

in an ozone non-attainment area.

C. Cost-Effectiveness

The U.S. EPA believes that the selected remedial action is cost-effective in mitigating the risks posed by the Site contaminantswithin a reasonable period of time. Section 300.430(f)(ii)(D) ofthe NCP requires EPA to evaluate cost-effectiveness by comparingall the alternatives which meet the threshold criteria ofprotection of human health and the environment against threeadditional balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness andpermanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume throughtreatment; and short-term effectiveness. The selected remedialaction meets these three criteria and provides overalleffectiveness in proportion to its cost. The estimated cost forthe selected remedial action is $20.5 million, which is areasonable value for the expected results to be achieved by theselected remedial action.

D. Utilization of permanent solutions and alternate treatmenttechnologies to the maximum extent practicable

U.S. EPA believes that the selected remedial action representsthe maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatmenttechnologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner toaddress contamination and risks associated with the Site andpotential migration of contaminants away from the Powell RoadLandfill. The selected remedial action provides the best balanceof tradeoffs in terms of long-term effectiveness or permanence;reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume; short-termeffectiveness; implementability; cost; and State and communityacceptance.

The criterion of overall protection of human health and theenvironment and long-term effectiveness and permanence werecrucial in the decision to select Alternative 4. Overallprotection of human health and the environment was best achievedby the selected remedial action because it provides protection ofhuman health from risks through treatment of leachate and groundwater in the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill. Bytreating contamination in leachate and ground water in theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill, ground watercontamination will decrease, cleanup levels will be achieved, andthe continued migration of leachate and contaminated ground waterfrom the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill is reduced.Leachate and ground water contamination in the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill are the primary sources of ground watercontamination identified in the primary aquifer, adjacent to thelandfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area). Extractionand treatment of leachate from the landfill and ground water fromthe shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill will address these

40

sources of ground water contamination and associated risks. Oncethe landfill cap ia constructed and the landfill gas, leachate,and ground water extraction/treatment systems are operational,contamination in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill andsouth of the river, will decrease and achieve cleanup levels.

Long-term effectiveness and permanence was best achieved by theselected remedial action due to leachate and ground watertreatment components. Leachate in the landfill and ground waterin the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill will be extractedand treated to reach cleanup levels and reduce residual risks inground water. The ground water in the shallow aquifer adjacentto the landfill has the highest ground water risks, and duringthe breakdown and dispersion of ground water contamination, risksto downgradient well users could exist. Once the landfill cap isconstructed and the landfill gas, leachate, and ground waterextraction/treatment systems are operational, the source ofground water contamination in the primary aquifer south of theriver (Eldorado Plat area) will no longer exist and ground watercontamination in the primary aquifer (adjacent to the landfilland south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)) will reduce andachieve cleanup levels (estimated to occur in a minimum of 6years).

Alternative 7 is the only alternative that actively addresses allareas of ground water contamination associated with the landfilland reduces risks posed by ground water contamination. Groundwater contamination in the primary aquifer south of the river(Eldorado Plat area) is addressed in Alternative 7 by extractingground water from the primary aquifer south of the river(Eldorado Plat area), transporting the extracted ground wateracross the river via a pipe, to the Site for on-site treatment.This ground water technology was considered too expensive and toocomplex to implement compared to the minimal reduction of groundwater risks.

The State of Ohio concurs with the selected remedial action. Thecommunity's comments received during the public comment periodare summarized in the Responsiveness Summary, attached to thisROD, along with the Agencies' response to comments.

The selected remedial action meets the statutory requirement toutilize permanent solutions and treatment technologies, to themaximum extent practicable.

E. Preference for Treatment

The selected remedial action satisfies the statutory preferencefor treatment as a principal element. Landfill gases andleachate will be collected/extracted and treated on-site. Groundwater will be extracted from the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill and treated on-site. Leachate will be extracted from

41

the landfill and treated on-site. The Powell Road Landfill, thesource of contamination, will not be treated, but will becontained by a landfill cap.

XI. DOCUMENTATION OP SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan wasAlternative 5. The Record of Decision identifies the selectedremedial action as Alternative 4. Because the selected remedialaction was one of the alternatives presented in the ProposedPlan, the U.S. EPA was not required to seek additional publiccomment on a revised Proposed Plan (NCP 40 CFR Part300.430(F)(3)(ii)(A)). The differences between these twoalternatives are the following: 1) Alternative 4 does notinclude treatment of contaminated soils to dewater, stabilize andsolidify the soils (prior to consolidation under the landfillcap), and 2) Alternative 4 does not include extraction of groundwater from the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill.

The preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan wasmodified as a result of comments received during the publiccomment period. Public comments caused the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA(the Agencies) to reevaluate the preferred alternative. Severalmajor comments were received during the public comment periodwhich questioned various aspects of the leachate and ground waterextraction and treatment components of the preferred alternative.Based on these comments the Agencies consulted technical expertsfor assistance with the issues. Below is a summary of thecomments, followed by the actions the Agencies took to resolvethe issues.

Comment 1.A ground water extraction system could compromise the leachateextraction system, and pull contamination from theleachate/ground water adjacent to the landfill, deeper into theprimary aquifer.

Action:PRL documents were reviewed by the Agencies' technical staff andcalculations of estimated drawdown of the ground water tablewhich could be caused by a ground water extraction system werecalculated. These calculations estimate conditions under whichground water extraction could have a negative effect on aleachate extraction system.

Drawdown calculations of a ground water extraction system in theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill identified minimaldrawdown of the water table would occur (<1 foot). Since groundwater extraction wells will be located between the southernboundary of the landfill and the river, any possible effects ofground water extraction would influence only the leachate

42

extraction wells closest to the southern boundary of thelandfill. Pumping rates of both extraction systems could beadjusted as necessary to prevent any negative interaction of thetwo extraction systems.

Drawdown calculations of a ground water extraction system in theprimary aquifer adjacent to the landfill identified substantialdrawdown of the water table may occur (possibly 4 feet).Therefore, extraction of ground water from the primary aquiferadjacent to the landfill could increase downward migration ofcontamination from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfillinto the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill, except wherethe confining till layer would limit vertical migration.

Therefore, the Agencies partially agree with the commenter.Extracting ground water from the primary aquifer may compromisethe leachate extraction system. However, the Agencies believethat it remains necessary to extract and treat ground water fromthe shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill to reduce the risksposed by ground water in this aquifer.

Comment 2.The Proposed Plan's preferred alternative 5 was questioned. Therationale being questioned was that by extracting ground waterfrom the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill, contaminationidentified south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), would bereduced. The commenter states that there is no evidence that PRLis the source of contamination found south of the river (EldoradoPlat area).

Action:This comment caused the Agencies to carefully review the geologyof the Site, the ground water contaminants and the migration ofground water away from the Site.

The primary aquifer which underlies the landfill is separated bya confining till layer which is present under the south side ofthe landfill and under the river. This till layer separates theaquifer into a shallow and primary aquifer. Although the tilllayer is present south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), it isnot continuous and therefore the aquifers are interconnected.

Ground water contamination is found adjacent to the landfill inthe shallow aquifer and in the primary aquifer. However, southof the river (Eldorado Plat area), geologic cross-sections do notshow a continuous till layer separating the aquifers in thevicinity of the monitoring wells. RI ground water data in theEldorado Plat area identifies contamination in monitoring wellsboth above and below the discontinuous till layer.

Ground water sampling and analysis found VOCs in the shallowaquifer adjacent to the landfill (223 ug/L), in the primary

43

aquifer adjacent to the landfill (150 ug/L), and in the primaryaquifer south of the river (Eldorado Plat area) (13 ug/L).

VOC contamination identified in the aquifers adjacent to thelandfill tend to primarily consist of "ethane" compounds and VOCcontamination identified south of the river (Eldorado Plat area)tend to primarily consist of "ethene" compounds. This is themajor argument used in the RI to discount the landfill as thesource of ground water contamination identified south of theriver (Eldorado Plat area). The Agencies disagree with theargument because "ethene" compounds were found in landfill gasvents (PCE, TCE), leachate (DCE), and in the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill (DCE). Ethene compounds were notdetected in monitoring wells in the primary aquifer adjacent tothe landfill.

Migration of contaminants away from the landfill are based on thelocation of sources of contamination and the geology. The majorsource is the landfill, which generates leachate, which migratesinto the ground water. Although the till layer does not existdirectly under the landfill, ground water flow in the regionalaquifer (GMR BVA) is horizontal from the north to south, and onceleachate migrates into ground water, it migrates horizontally tothe south. This is why the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill contained the highest levels of contaminants andexceeded MCLs during RI sampling. Some vertical migration ofleachate/ground water also carries contamination into the primaryaquifer (adjacent to the landfill), however, only 2 monitoringwells in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill showedcontamination during RI sampling. Due to these area ground waterflow patterns at the Site, migration of contaminants from thelandfill to south of the river (Eldorado Plait area) , must occurhorizontally from either the shallow or primary aquifers adjacentto the Site (or possibly from both aquifers).

RI data suggested that the Great Miami River was a barrier tomigration of ground water from adjacent to the landfill, underthe river to the aquifer in the Eldorado Plat area. Thus,contamination identified in the Eldorado Plait area must havemigrated from the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill.However, in response to public comments the Agencies consultedground water experts at Ohio EPA and were advised that the GreatMiami River is not necessarily a barrier to ground watercontaminant migration under the river.

In conclusion, the Agencies believe that the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill is one of the primary sources ofcontamination found in the Eldorado Plat area. As a primarysource, remediation of the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill will significantly reduce migration of ground watercontamination from the Site. This component, of the remedialaction, combined with leachate extraction and treatment as well

44

as the construction of the landfill cap, is expected to eliminatemigration of ground water contamination from the Site.

Comment 3.Treatment of excavated contaminated soils, prior to consolidationon the landfill, would not provide additional protection norprovide significant reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume,compared to Alternative 4.

Action:The Agencies have reviewed the information provided by thecommenter, and consulted with the Ohio EPA RCRA program, andagree that treatment of soils to dewater, solidify and stabilizesoils prior to consolidation under the landfill cap will notprovide any additional protection of human health and theenvironment, nor provide any significant reduction of toxicity,mobility or volume.

45

- c —'

1-N-

".'.'...'".' •:•. 'Miami • .la

«•"•

I ','/:Hi';.'-

•*::•• • i-

RIP RAPISLAND

:. H -

*- ^\\ * v — ELDORADO PLAT- "*J, ~* - . ' ::.-? . .

_ ''"jJLC '•? K A R B i - J S O N• »5i~" ~ V - SUNNY ACRES ——rr———•-:''» -r"_ :^- : .—•ta<x • s Sini

. .; -^. - S -—- *r -. •

- M A D.r'/Jlooks Corner

w "':•: "_. i i.J..— •:.•••:*,&

d. -

-GOLF ::JRSES^-

>"f i -^L

LEGEND:_.— S)TE BOUNDARY OHIO

STUDY AREA BOUNDARY2000 4000 '

SCALE IN FEETQuadrangw

LocanonBASE MAP SOURCE: USGS 7 1/2 mmuta tooograpnie quad-rangi* map. Dayton Nortft. Ohio 1965. photoravwad 1981.

POWELL ROAD LANDFILLSCA SERVICES OF OHIO, INC.

FK2URE1

SITE VICMfTY MAP

JOB NO. 7722-277-017

Eldorado PUl area(foulh of river)

primary aquifer - south of river(Eldorado Plat area)

primary aquifer - aouln of river(Eldorado Plat area)

primary aquifer(adjacent to the landfill)

(adjacent to the landfill)

Eldorado Plat area(wulb of river)

ItGENO

HOMIOkUL tC*l(

VIII 1C*. KUt

| IMU tCMIH MlfHtMl

• Mil* 11*1 «/•/••

IMCI IMWII COlLICnO WH»l DMlllHM,Wlutl M ^/l i » IMH*ni HO •HCIKH

•« «N>l«tll »«O1« It/Ol tMMtIN*. VM.UftM M/l | * MOtUIII MO OtffClai

MVMOGCOUMW: CROSS -SCCTMNS

FlfillRE

(••I/It

}LEGEND:

THA

VI*

©HOI

A ••- *•"a v..v_

Fence

Intermittent Stream

Topographic Contour

Vent Location

Surface 1 eachaleSampling Location

„. 770 —

Total VOC concentration Contour.1100 — Contour Interval - 200 (dashed where

interred)

1Rcft Total VOC Concentration1090 (milligrams/cubic meter)

0 __________ 200 _____ 400

( SCALE IN FEET

-•""' iNOTE: All elevations releienced lo mean sea level

POWELL ROAD LANDFILLSCA SERVICES OF OHIO. INC.

FIGURE 4

GAS VENT VAPORTOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS

Dvny '• M«M.rr JOU HO 1122 2 i!> 121

ILGLND:

vs

QHOI

> MW07A

NS

— It

223/11/0

100

100

Fence

Intermittent Stream

Topographic Contour

Vent Location

Surface 1 eachaleSampling Location

Shadow MonitoringWe! Location

Vent Liquid TotalVOC Concentration(micrograms/Ner)October - November1988

Not Sampled Due toAccess Problems

Vent liquid TotalVCX: Contour,LogarithmicContour Interval

Ground Water TotalVOC Concentration(micrograms/Mer)December 1988/Apnl 1989/February1991

Total VOC ContourReflecting December1988 Ground WaterData

Total VOC ContourReflecting Apnl 1989Ground Water Data

NOTE: AN elevationsr*tar«ncM) to mean

—— 100 ——Total VOC ContourReflecting February 1991Ground Water Data

Approximate LandtiHArea

BASE MAP SOURCE: Topographic Surveyo«Pow«NRoadLancttll.&*ira-Saddfef &Associates. January 16. 1068

300 600

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

POWELL ROAD LANDFILLSCA SERVICES OF OHIO. INC.

Mt.URt 5

LANDFILL LIQUIDS/GROUND WATERTOTAL VOC CONCENTRATIONS

Dane* & MooCr

BAS£ MAP MXJOC4 \aeof n*<* Suiv«r olPOM* HotJlantM. Calm S*ddbi I Aivoc

i i a i r i i )-- -• —— lenca

_ Mciirhllfid MIIMIII

— /60— lopogtaptuc CoMouiun |«ai<J HICL'IJ

«ml duedun jnl Itmptialui*)K An Sjtnpkng I <xai»n

|(Xla(i«i 2/. I'JtW)

Wind D« acton lOaotMi 26Wmd Dutction (Octotet I? 1868)

SCAli IN Utl

POWELL ROAD I A N D I I I ISCA SERVICES OF OIHO. INC.

I1CIIRE *

AMUIENI AIR OUAII I *SAMPLE I OLA I IONS

IIAMIS ft MOOIC J"BI<

'SHBURG ROAD \3AM M»» 9OUXCE: USCS" "J "MM* ia««an»n«3u«Drin«* UK* 0«MW Norm.

GRAVEL PIT

SOS^VOS

07/W07POWELLROAD

APPROXIMATESCALE IN FEET

EGEND:—. —— Approximate Limits of Study Area—— — Approximate Landfill Limits—...— intermittent Stream

• Sediment/Surtace Water Sampling>02/W02 Location

POWELL ROAD LANDFILLSCA SERVICES OF OHIO, INC.

FIGURE 7

SEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATERSAMPLING LOCATIONS

DAMES A MOORE JOB NO. 7722-277-017

\

&Is i/iI/I C23

h i

SBtlr1 99

»*

ii• ? i «' § S f

> * ± \ I S' is!!

f !

LEGEND.———— PROPER IY BOUNDARY

_ TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR |f EEI.MSLI

*••» SPOT El tv»l ION (FEE I. MSI |

••—•9 SUE COORDINATE SYSTEM

ACCESS ROAD

—— —— TREES/WOODS

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF' FtNCMG

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

— -- •— INTERMITTENT STREAM

• VI WENT LOCATION

. CONTAMINATED SOIL* tAMPLf LOCATION

£ SK;;:S:1 ESTIMATED HOT SPOT AREA

•CALEMFEEI•ASEIMPSOLMCE

,

POWELL ROAD LANDFILL I•CAUNVCt SOP OHIO MC. f

HGURE 9silt m. AM

joeito

iii

*!

I'SIS

f

i.

\ // i. •• •? <(f " i A v ,

1

TABLE I

GAS VENT METHANE MEASUREMENTS

POWELL ROAD LANDFILLHUBER HEIGHTS. OHIO

Vent No.

VI

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

V8

V9

vioVII

V12

V13

V14

V15

V16

V17

V18

V19

V20

Date10/25/88

10/25/88

10/25/88

1 1/08/88

1 1/08/88

10/28/88

1 1/08/88

11/08/88

10/25/88

10/28/88

11/08/8811/08/88

11/08/88

11/08/88

10/25/8810/28/88

11/09/8811/09/88

11/09/88

11/09/8811/09/8811/09/88

11/09/88

Percent Methane*38

60

61

62

61

12

56

58

62

11

5958

30

58

6119

56

42

46

24

1819

16

* Approximated from combustible gas content readings from an MSA Gascope Model S3 CGI

TABLE]

H K I U OMUANIC ANALYSIS <JAS V K N I VAI'OM

ro\VKI I. ROAD I.ANUHI.I.IIUBEft HEIGHTS, OHIO

Veal NMMkcr

Round 1

r.r.....r <-,/-3,

BaucneCMorobcnicneCUanriunt*I.I DicMucocthwte1.2 Dkhlmoeihm••tt 1.2 ftcWoroeihene*Efcylboucne*

TenddMudhaie*ToklMB*I.I.I TrichlofoeUuneTricUonctfMM*VwylcUondeXykne**

VI

9.4.--

.209.-

2617

V2

02It.

0.2.-9

.

75-1234

VJ

3d55--.-

65

.

295-16269

V4

15.

-13

756-•

3130

vs

9--.

»

775-.

36116

V6

23..

.30

120..

2043

V7

.14-

481.

38

63116..

4412

VII

214

321-

34

77I2U

-

2673

v* vii vii

28 9.1 J6

2.

J«>

7194 49 1 16.

2J II 3625 4 116

V I 2

311.5

9

222-

3122

V I J

0 )5

4.

22

1464

22666

V I 4 V I S

i14

12 M

II 26

212\t 7i

-

3) 3B62 56

P wrdpw

,.r 2

T

Parameter (mf/m3)

BoucncChtoroboucncCUoroedMK*I.I UicMaTOcttiine1.2 DkhlaroemaM•mm- l.2-Dichlo«oe»hen«*Ethyl benzene*MediyknccMoiulc*TetrackloNicdiene*Toluene*1 . 1 . 1 -Trkhlof uclhanelikhloroctheM*Vinyl chlorideXyknei*

-.Parameter not detected

VI*

035-4•-

13-760--

23

,. ^nfif*

Hound

VI7

0314.16--

3V-

55165

-431121

1 (Continued)

VU

.

9.

60.-

22-

14116

-54443

Vlt

III.

32-.17

322-24422

via

039.8--2-37-

-17

Vcnl Number

KlMlllll I

Vlt VlttVI V3 V9 < !!:••) VIS Vl» VI9 PK20I <I7:«O)

4 II II 3 7 7 II II 1

16V 261 314 I3H 9V 186 l»i Ittll

7V % 143 I1W IIV 124 65 41 II)

Blank ipwc = Not analyzed

2 of 2

TABLE 3

VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS - C;AS V K N I LIQUIDIMHVKI.L ROAD I.ANDHI.I.

IIUBRR IIRIUIITS. OHIOSample Number/I Vvnl Number)

CRQI. L»3Z«l(a) Lt4Z«l(n)Parameters (jig/I.)Vinyl chlorideChloroeihaneMdhykne chlorideAcetoneCarbon disullMkI.I DkUoroethancUDkhlonxlhene (total)Chloroform2-Butanone1 .2- DichloroproputeTrkblorodheneBenvnetrans-13 Dithloropropene4 Mcdiyt-2-pentanone2HetanoneTeBachkMOcUicneTolueneChlorobcn/eneEthylbenaeneStywneTotal lykncs

Total VOCi

CRQL > ConuM-iequiicd q- s Parameter not detectedB = Compound detected inD = Concentration deiennii

;E = Concentration exceedsJ = Estimated value

(Hg/L)1010510Ss551055551010555555

niamJunt*

» (V3)91-

2J450 D

--

4 J-

780 D3J

-6-

120--

320 D2Jno-

260 D

2,0**

in limit

(V4)--------

20IJ

-6-

25--

273J140-

290E

SI2

L«5Z01(h)(V5)

---

380 B-

5 J3J

-500

--

4 J-

120 B-

3 J2706Jno

-360

1,7*1

L«5*ID(»)(VS)6J

--

270 BD----

430 D----

90 B--

66B2126-

82

972

L07ZOI(n) LltZOI(c) LI2Ztl(a) l.l4ZOI(d) 1 I40ll)(d)<V7)

--

3 J-

1 J---

64-

4 J2J

---7

3J100

-310 E

494

(a) Detection kvels cons

blank as well as samplenedlhroiit k dihMion of samnk

(b) Detection kvels 2 5»

(VIO>68 J

--

3.900 BU--

II J-

5.500 D--

II J-

500--

39010 J100151330

IO.KJS

lirfcni with CKQLgreater than CRQL

(VI2) (VI4) (VI4)4 J (> J 5 J21

-15

20 3J-

2 J

4J--

3 J 5 J 5J

150 no-

J J13 JM M1 J 4 J 2J41 110 Ml

-32 5JOL 4'HIIII:

IK H7J NHJ

(c) Detection kvels I0» greater lha* CRQI.(d) Detection kvels 2x grcaiu than CRQL

calibration range

Page I of 2

TABLE 3 (CMIMMC4)

CRQL LlSZtl(c)Parameters (|ig/L)Vinyl chlorideChloroethaneMewylene chlorideAcetoneQrtMMdisuUidcI.I DicMororthafteU DicMoroemene (total)Chloroform2-B«UMone1.2-DichlarapropancTrichlofoetheneBouoneInns- 13 Dichloropropene4-Metbyl-2-peMMione2HeunoneTetnchlorocihcncTolueneChlofobcnxcneEJhyfceueaeStyrcneTotal lylcnes

T«lal VOCs

CKQL»Contract-ic<)uiicd

(MI/LI10105105SSs1055SS1010sssss5

quantiiatinn limiti

(VIS)--

24 BJ670 B

----

1.500--

191-

541--

220-

99-

280

2,1*6

LltZtl(e)(VU)

81---

13618-

20-

217-

29-

2119031no

-260 E

• Stt

Sam»teLI7Z«l(a)

(VI71-

21-

42613--

75--

41-

14--

1311120-

290 E

S«0

Numbrr/(Venl Number)LllZtl(f)

(VU)171

-• -

27.000 D61

---

39.000 D--

91-

2.600 D300

-630

-62111160

•9.795

L28Zll(a)(V20)

1 J18---

1 J19-

99-

2 J6-

4 J

-4110--

54

2U

(a) Detection levels consistentlr\ rVlM-lirui Irwrlc If In atf.ttf,

L2tl«l I02ZOI I03ZOI(Pk2tl) (Field blank) (Field blank)

51-

101 21 14 U62-

'86

1 153..

51.

230. -

-600

-50

-170

1.271

wah CKQI.r iii-u. r*um

B = Compound detected in blank as well as sampleD > Concentration determined through dilution of sample

: E = ConccMnuon exceeds calibration range1 = Estimated value

(e) Detection levels I 3x greater iruui CKQI.(0 Detection levels 5* giuicr ih.ui CRQt,

Page 2 ol 2

TABLE 4

SEMIVOLATII.i: OKtiANIC ANALYSIS - <;AS VI N I I Kjllll)

I'OWKLL KOAU LANUHI I.IIUHER IIKIUII rs. OHIO

CRQL LOJZOHa) LMZftl(a) L«SZ«l(a)Parameters (|tg/L)Phenoll dNtturutoenzcneBenzyl alcohol1 .J -dirhkmbrn/"1'*2 MethylpheMl4 MeihylpkcaolNdrobenzencbophorone2.4-Dime«iylphenolBeraoicacidNapMiakne2 McdiykupbiiulcacAcenaptrihenoDvbenonamDiedrylphtkalaicFWoreneN NiVModiphcnylamine (1)tatebkmyhenolPhemnthjeneAaihraccneDi-A-bmyl phthalateFhMBTMlheM

PyteneButyfcciuyl phihalateBeuu(a)MlmoenDCrystaebo(2 EthylheiyDpnihalaicDinoctylphihalaie

T«lal Semlv«Utlles

CRQL = Cas«act required qu

(Ht'L*)10101010101010101050101010101010105010101010101010101010

(VI) <V4) (VS)16 - 330«H 2*

-51

II - IOJ26 - 340--10 • 4 J

1807J 26 2611 IJ-

2616 - 12 J-

7J---------

623J

2*7 *7 9«>

Sample Numb«r/(Vrnl Number)LtSOID(a) L07ZOIU) LltZOI(t>) Ll2Z«l(a) Ll-4Z»l(») 1.14*1 D(a)

<VS)201) D

14.

131.600 D.

21IJ

310 D31SJ..

25..-..

51.*

'-.-

21

2,215

(a) Detection levc

<V7) (Vm (VI2) <VM)31 I.2IM) 913S 17 J 11 J I

321

3 J - . 3 J10 (90..

911101

36 19 J14 13 J7J61 - -41 3171 - 2J..

4 4 - 6 161 • 21.H9J - -.

61 - -3J - -4 1 - 1 1

.»)

2511 1,511 3» III

1 consistent with CQKL

(VI4)4 J31

6171

4 1

i J

IN29

74

- B Parameter MM detectedD = ConccMralfcn determined through dilution of sampleI = Estimated value

(b) DeteniM level Si greater than CQKL

PjBc I of 2

Sample N«mb«r/(V*nl Number)

Parameters (|ig/L)Phenol1 ,4-didilorooenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-dicldofDbenzenc2 Methylphenol4 MeihylphcnolNitrobenzenebophorone2.4-DimeihylphenolBeraoicacidNaphthalene2 Mediy hiaphthalcneAcenaphiheneDiberoofuranDiedtyl phlhalaleRuorcneN-NiaTotudiphenylamine (1)rVntachlorophenolPhamrnhroKAnhraceneDi-n-buiyl phlhalaleRuoramhcnBPyicia*Buryfceruyl phlhalaleBcno(a)anVnoMBCryicntbu(2 EiiiylheiyDphihalateDinoctyl phlhalale

CRQL(ug/L)

101010101010101010SO101010101010105010101010101010101010

LISZtM(a) LI«Z*l(a)(VI5) (VIA)

50 5119 28-.

71130

211' ---

21SJ313127 10• T

-

21 I5J.

51•-

-«---

LI7Z«l(a)(V17)

-71-.

31-..-.

246J-.

61.--.....-..1221

LltZ*l(b) L2«Z»l(a) 1.2«m lt2Z«l I03ZOI(VIS) (V2«) (PH2AI) (ti«M blank) (frield bUnk)

3Ul) - 24131 -

.

.151 • 141

2.600 D . 4 7 0. . . ...

5.600 DV J

* -

* •

.84 .. . . ...

71. . . ..

5141

231. . . ..

130 M.

Total S«mlv«Ulil«s 275

CRQL 3 Caattaci-requifcd quaaiUalton Until- a Parameter not detectedD = Concencralioii dctcmiincJ lhruu(;h dilution of sample1 = E&iimated value

»5 1,752 27 *••

(a) Dewclion level cuisisioni wuh CQKI.(b) Deteclion kvd 5i grata* than CQRI.

Page 2 of 2

TABLES

INOK<;ANI<: ANALYSIS - I;AS VENT LIQUIDI'OWKI I. MO AD I.ANDKII I.

HUBEB HEIGHTS. OHM»Sample Number/I V«*l

Scttctttf Mrtab (|i|/L)AnciiicBMWMCafcwamCkfommnIXM!MacuryfrltMMIISilver

Olkcr MMrg Mlcs (|it/L)CyMitftSmMfem

AluminumAMitMMiyBayMiuaiTilriMMiCoUlltoff*InM*f>*aMmMM^MMMNkkdPouitiunSodiwHIMIiwnVMMfcM

ZMC

L01ZOICBDL (V3)

102005105

0.2510

10-

200605

5.00050251005001540

5.0005.000

105020

10 SN|I42|

-56209---

UN1.060

301--

209.000|W|29E

19.50022IJOOO

559MM

253XWO350X100

-|62|

67JOU

1.64X61

SSIN2.010966)39145.6

--

UN3.120 N

39».IIOO93 N20

2.190.000360

IXMOI.UOjOOO1.270X1009J30E

99564.20045400

•749

26IXUO

LOSZOI(VS)

2JHNIJOM|4'l2796701.5

-|54|

17 N2.110 N

117.000II4N|2.V)

I.590XMM)177343

923XIUO596.000LIME

553166X100I07XMU

.254

323XUO

LOSOID(VS)

240 N9611.

26)6762.6

--

21 N2.050

104.000|54|Nno

I.540XMO155295

•SIXMOS7oxno1.770 E

4MUljOOO106X100

.227

394XWO

NumliirrlL67Z6I

(V7)

SMIN3.2IWH6I.I Mill1.740

6-

•9N4.570 N

664.IMMI

334.H20.UJO

6971.510 I:

2.I60.UM)I.9SO.OUO20.1001.710

904.0011992.0110

1.440U20XM)

LI6Z6I(VI*)

327 N2.560.

JSS37.

172 N5.140 N

2.6HO-

||7|6.2UO.OUO

67-

720.0002.750.0001 2.100 E

17|2.I4O|2IXWO

.|2)|

347XM)

LI2Z6I<VI2)

31 SN427

575605,

6110 N

3«.9IM>|SI|N

.395.IHIO

|32|16 E

71.200IHO.OOU1.470119

1)2.0110II3XMU

.90

2.2«0

LI 4X61(VI4)

|I2|N412.

H43W07

U14N

4.430-.

542.UMI|47|51 E

42X4H*456.OUO

669261

7I6XMI762.WU

|2H|HIM.

LI46ID(VI4>

17 SN327.

It341O S

69) N

3.310.

1HI.IKII345)

35.9IHI420.0011

494274

M42.IMI90S.INIO

II"!7J.OOii

t » toliriiri • v«tac n !*••*< at MI Mcpancd owMf k> *c pc«c«c« uf mrifnrmtt.

• « In6irilri AifkaMC MMlyatb

~lndiulcr*ccninl4§mi ««»

•*Ad^ M«•-» — ' — i--.^.- -BKVJBUBl BJU •• i ~~mm~-mm.

MM «4lU« OMMWal kMM.BDLcteMlui mclhuU of sumiwa MkliUtm is luf Uu« tt99S.

TAILC S

LISZM LUZ*Ir*raM«Urt

Sckclcd Mctafe (|if/L)AMUCftmmnCadmiumCkKNMMmLa*McKiiyScloMnnSilver

Other hwgMlc* (|t|/L)Cy«UeSMMhHIl

AluminumAMMMMjr

BeryWwMCtlCMMI

CotwliCoffctbnMif HeliumMMfMMeMchdPoiMiiumSatimThtJlHMiVMMftMR

Zwc

CBDL

10200

S105

0.2510

10-

200M5

5.0005025100500IS40

5.0005.000

105020

iii

(VIS)

433 Nl.lbO2»4149971.2

-

254N5.720 N

269.00093 NII

I.66O.UOO277•02

93SJHIO779.000M30E

7133K7.0UO5*24100

49»

2W°"

(VI6)

166 NMM121376950.7

--

•2N4.700

72.5009iN13 61

597.000M

227 li334.000371.0002.2603U

540.0110797.000

-166

11.100

LI7ZOI(VI7)

32 SN246

-259504

--

•I.IION

12.6110--

4*2.000im50

167.000151.0003.550

112157.000234.000

-|W|

6.610

LISZ9I(VII)

42 SN|II4|130112

24607.4

-

II4N727 N

4.130--

611.00066II*

54.MM)I.2M.OOO

52H312

I.2IOJIOU2.150.000

-|2K|

2«4^00

L2CZ6I(VI*)

295 NS.SiiO

-

16

-

26 N6.710 N

521B LOTION

|l.2|7.1MI.04XI

101-

7J».(»MI

2.900.0003S.KO t

71lOS.OtNl119.000

U?l2.3511

L2»l*l I«2Z«I I63Z6I(ri!2«O (H«W blMk) (H«W b|«nk>

27 St |29|N215 |10|II156

UMO13 0 24

V92N I6N

14.200* |12|71

229.000 |22I| |M||•5133 70 1: cw>

354.000 • |H | Hi51.700I.5UO |24| |4S*||-M3

39.100 9.600141 |I.9|O|

-

l«l4.5UI |I4| |)f,|

E » baton.! • witot catouted at mot icportoi owiftg to Ike pmattc U irtnfeinccnn.fAnJ !!••••

1 1 = V4ac * parted U tou AM CMM -« = i—tLr-i*. *e carielMkM cufkieal fut mclhod of skintbnl Mldtliin u leu IkM 0.995.

2 ut 2

TABLE*

SlllttAI t I.EACIIATK ANALYSIS

I. ROAD I ANOHI I.HUtCft HKUillfS, OHIO

CBBL

Sd«cU4 Metals (pt/L)AamcBMW*CMtatomChUMMim

!<•!Mou*yStltMMII

Silver

Olkcr iMrfMla (|t|/l.)Cy«a4»IBBB^BM

AliuniMiMiAMteMym I, MI ,,DCfvJMMB

10200S10s

0.2S10

10.

200«0S

Cilciaai S.OOOCat*CaffctbnH nriHimMH MMNkkriPoMuiiMn&^K|MB

TkcMiHmVMK<MIMZMC

^ i nsi*1"'0" "li •= laifcfmlfi • vitue csMMUed « *u RpunN & UAriici tfike faayle wcavcry u MMS > Iwtfcattt vriiK tlctcnmied bv •tdMi4 o

so2SMOsonis40

3.0003.000

10so20

lot owing«Mte«

HOIZOI

I'Mfisil.

4921.--

479 N*739

S4K*.

(IllThJUO

SIIS

2JIO221000

62B321

l.270jOUUK2MIOOO

.|H|3V7

iihSr*u(i"h:rfiaeiiee1 aJiBiljna

CKQI. IUI/«I

V«Ullle OrBMlck (t«K/l.)CUuucikMW lo } jMc*yk«e ckliciik S 21HUUUK 5 ~jTulmK 3 2 1CMonteiucMC 3 <•)l.lhylbcaKK 3 j |ItNil lylcncs 3 HI

Scml.uUlllc Or,..U> ,HK/| )2-Meikyl hukul |o 2 JNj|«lHfew 10 | }4 ChlttoJ nk:diyl|ilii:HU 10 2)Dwikyl phUMble 10 )|hik(2 l:ihylhcivl)|4MluLilc 10 H«

TABLET

AMMIKM AIM TKNAX Tll|»K ANALYSIS Ki:SIH Is

rOWKI.I. ROAI> I.ANDHI.I.HKitiiirs, OHIO

c. -.- < tan

Be*-.

Carton Judfck

Carton tcncUoridc

Mclhylcnc thlofuk

TcMckloracteM

T<*«c

I.I.I Tackkmcihaw

TikUwucikcne

TricUaoOuarancfeaM

Xyk«ei

T«4al VOCi

• Deiecjiaa lt«u van will

Appro.!..!.IMecIlMLlMlt*

0.0014

00005

00004

OOOOS

0.0003

0.0001

O0004

0.000]

0.0009

00012

k each «aonk •

Sample |.l>.

Otlultrr 2«, I9M 4>,i,ili.r 27. !•»«•U»wl«^ Ontllc l»«wnwl»a llpwln«l <»u»llc l>.i»uuiu,|A-tS A-«2 A-«l A-*l A-«4 A-M A-t7 A-14 A-IJ A-ll A It A «9 A-«»

aoou . . . . . . oooi i ooui i oooi j ouu i

OOOI

0.001 OOOI . . . OOOI OIMII nuu IIIHII

000) 000) OOOI 0002 OOUI 0002 OOOI UUU OUU nun nun nuij

OIMII J

0.003 O002 aOO) 0.001 0.001 J 0002 OOOI 0.005 000) HUH ouii oiMU

0.003 0002 OOOI 0002 0.001 OOOI OOUI OUU 0002 0002 OUM OIMII

. . . . 0009

aoos 0.007 aoo) 0.004 0.002 0004 0.002 ooo) UIMJJ 0017 mm

a005 0002 0002 OOOIJ 0002 OOOI 0004 OUM OUM mm* Oui2

0.021 0017 0.010 0.009 0006 0011 0006 0024 OOIS oolS onii on.')

cc«4lia« 10 volume unnlctlJ •- = MM detectedNote: Ictf bUak A-12 wu Uufcc* upon Rcapl by Ike bb xul was MM Mulyo:JNote: VjJueifouMkduilkc«eMC*lOOOIi kii3

TABLE II

MTKCTION SIIMMAMY

rOWU-L ROAD I ANDHI I.IMWM mm**im ••»••»•**

rMMMMn

•sir 4 — »!z£ £££;SOIZDI

SMOIMDUn

SOOOI - »J4

snzoi OOM

wnwuMif) ; • i* .S04ZOI

SOSZOI

SOODI

sonoiSMZOI

. ——— 0 ————

SI 41

*4

n ii

• 1I*

II) II

4* 11

}*

10

M

LuJ

11

•J11

11

11

]l

1}10

«0

?•

.--*. c^.

iin.uu «*

1 116 KM

II.IU) II

IIJ.'HU 1}

«>.hw 17

liw.uuu }0

7I«HI 14

M)4O(I 14

im.uki »j

1 lu.uu * I

1..>.4«0

J.JM

I1.IUI

lo.itw

I.»JO

U.uuo

1.1M

•.no

4.NO

l.Jh»

^ ———— M...,,. M.

4«.hki in ii

W.ttM l«ll IU

21 ki) Ml II

M.tuu 11) 14

NU«* ill |)

l»u^ 4U 21

2I41W 116 II

llHu 111 II

4V M> 2«*

1U.MM 111

tlCIOL)

TABLE*

DETECTION MJMMAKV •SUWACE WATCH

rowti .1. HOAU i ANUHI iUUUft MKKJinS. OHIO

fmnmfUn

Mtrcury

WOIZOIWOIOIUHMJP)

wolzoiWOIZOIWOIZOIWOIZOI

W01ZOKDUP)W01Z02W04ZOIW04Z02W05ZOIW01Z02W0620IWOtZOl

W06ZOUXDUP)W07ZOIWOIZOIWOIZOIWOU02

1*1

101

1*2

!••

102

10

M

lit

9292

II•

02

1.1901.1004)4

14704111420

1*2

Ml

027

4*1i.Too

441111lotIM1)4I7<111IM

Calcium

774644

11.400•M

11.400*0iI4t

14.400»**

14.100

.Ill

1.4401.120

-72147*MM

TOUCH!70.10016.10071.70041.10067.20064.10011.000II.6UU41.100*4.»0061.90012.10011.10017.00012.200M.70014.100•1.000

1.0 10»}*

10.0001.2001 11.000411t!4

I7.UOU1.42021.100

i*y711

•4011•49031214)010*04MO

11.00014.70020.90014.40019.10014.10014.00020.10016.10019.10011.10029.000I7.MO20.40011.00011.00014.700It. 10011.100

21)

214

101

164

II 1

1*1114

16421191

.'••*•

l.MO

5. Mo1.0)0

ll.luu2I.MO11.900I4.14MI14)0011.1001J 10011.100

litI t0(IIllk>III4*ltd.

1C)• (

»•> IHitbl

I III641

lAfnlltO*

TABU 10

DETECTION SUMMARYflJBnCULKMLJ

. MOAD I ANI»U IHUM* HOUim. OHIO

tmnmtUnSMBtkoUh•MMNM 4.4MMT

FOIZOIHIIOUXDUF)

FOZZOIP026IIXDUP)

FUZOIFMZOIFUZOIFOtZOIF07ZOIFMZOIFMZOIFMZOIFIIZOI

FI220I (•) 0044FIIZOIFUZOIFIIZOIFUZOIFI7ZOIFIIZOIFMZOI

HVOUXIMJPiFaozoiF2IZOIF22ZOIFUZOIFMZOI

F2JZOI (•)FMZOIF27ZOIF2U0IF2JZOIF10ZOIFIIZOIF12ZOI

•MAf UAd AIVAB^C BafitMM

l» 106IM6174

1.1 • - 11M

.71M71

l» 12212 • «6

*2» - 74MMIM70

7 106•2MJJ

.

.»J7140J4|OV121

20 100012 - 114

M

47-

^^^ t>na||[|m

16MII12tl146*ISIt1112IS1114If)IS• 4101212766140127114SJ

12 2414 11

2020116174Jl

Lrad

ItIS

»6ISIS

-27-

12IS21J*-

242)4*27-

»J• 1II-..

12M4121)9612119J6

Mtr Abu*—

IIJOO11.400•.200

-

V.OIO11.401)«.<MO11.90010.6007.MO

Oil 6.120-

0 12 12.700

10.600-,

n.iwo6.1606.4M

.10.4110

-1 2.000

f^^

116.000M.700111.000

-•.-

116.000

96JOO41.700M.700

101 .muI02.0UO117.600

-

112.00002,20061.100

61.4IKI

61.100IIK.IIOUMJOOIIK.IIOU

.

112111.

---

16

1*2620

-141412

III

2V-

14

11201161

boa

I2.IUOIt.MO7.JM

I4.4UO

14.6111Il.tUt16.600

II JUl

V.>JO•.110

-

lu.nuu.

U Mil

»| -Mil

U.OUI9./40II. Mil7.MJO

li.4UO

11.70010.000

)<(.tNIO

)K.k<Wlf.40011.700

44 4im4040047.IOU

4SV1KI.

21111111

>!"H»>12.MM44.IOO414IM4»2IW

14414611*

141

121tV4IM

.'»«Itl111

M

fll

«.'IU244'V2IM

- Na touaal «>»»• Oigt, OtUi, mM(CHUt)

I «< 2

TABLE It

Zlac (a) ScBivolMik* wctc Khml • OK FONo

HIIZOIFOIOID(OU|>)

PK2ZOI

M1ZMFMZMFttSZOIFOCZMF07ZOIFOOZOIFOUZOIFIOZMFII2UM

FIZrtI (a)FIIZOIFI4ZOIFISZOIFI620IH7ZOIFIIZOIFUZOI

F2IZOIF22UIFIIZOIF24ZM

F2SZOIMF26ZUIF27ZOIF2UOIF2*ZOIFMffOIFIIZOIFIZZOI

II112211II21

121*

21II1112201611

1)IS1210

1411121417IIII2716

1)12

•-Detected above---NM4CMCM4I

I.MO.-

2.470.

2.0*0

.•

.

.

.-.--

.1.2M1.240I.MO

2.4M.

I.3SO-

2.470.

l.)40.

•

.

•

COM*

itov«<

I.1JO1.170

2627

1623

2121212624It171112221724

II

II

F1SZOI

60•242

OenZOuipyicflcbMkMu(l.2.l-c4ipyicw 1.100Bcu4i(t.lu>r*«ylMc 1.200

6017•2

272f212112IS

ChUL.CIUN-.oI (CHQl.) «• MMna i«|M(fel •*.!. i lu«M((KIH |

TABLE II

DKTCCTION SUMMARY <SUBSUBf ACE SOIL

rOWEI.1. KUAD I.ANM1U.UUMRIODUtfn.OMO

•02ZOIMUM

M020IMOZIO•102*1•I 1201•112*1• 152*1•15201

OUOtDOHJT)•20204

020OHKDUT)•2f2M

2

025

41

14

10

4441

51M241IMIM

11

•155114

14172»SI1121IT1017M51II

It

7221)147MM2115214• 45114tl00

Mtniwj

ill)

Oil

10041Mtut141W2077M12042ita

6360IIJHM)14.10014.40014400

4J40I4JOOO

1.1404.*40S.1TOI7IOU

I27.WIOOi.lttO

54.20044.5110SllftU07.MOM.SOOin ooo17.700IMUO

W IIHIM1UO77.100

•02/01M1ZOIM5ZMMUMMOZIOBIOZM• IIZM•112*1•152*1•152*1

•250IO(DUr)•202*1

•100ID(DUP(•2t2M

54II14MIISI111110

»4• 1II

II.MOIMOO21.7002I.OM2IJOO

njm

»JM*21JOO

2)444127t

SOI1)1

*•!

IM141MO525

14102112M10101220II

1221

1.4701400

17201715M221514

12

IV17M

Ztoc

44t4110157litIM

11175U)141SI177

0440)0

U6am

lf*qun«4^CRUL.CRUL.wi

>H0*«*1'KW.~>' «""1 VHran* fUHtm-vmmnt M <1(MJ) •""! mippmi* **iwt*i-l3M«n »»eqt pnMDQ •

Iclnj. I |

fl

APIt>•tlMl

•i

tlM

tl(I

vt

vt

vt

I'ln WM1MM

OfllOtLllKNJB I

IIIJ)

TABLE 13

SUMMARY or CHEMICALS DETECTED IN THEELDORADO PLAT AREA GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS

(CMMWMi r itm to u*L>

TOWEU. ROAD LANDFILLHUBER HEIGHTS. OHIO

RMEI'SETA

1.2-DicMeraMJMMlwui)* 2/10biK2-EOiyUM>yll|iMMbM* 1/6TnchloroMMM* 2/10

2.733

3.3 - 3.13

4.1.5.3

2.93(4)3.6

3.1NOS 3

Ziac

1/65 / 66 / 66 /65 / 63 / 61/65/62/66/6.5/63 /65 /61/66/66/66 /66/6

244 3240

19.0005.76.15.6

100014

354)00640.2

3.9004.2

1.0005.66.1

23.72 9.1

126-34071.100.103.000

3.4- (.15.1-7.6IJ

52-3.2202-2.7

30JOO-39.700264-14*

0.22JOO-5JM

137J4Q. 40.350

301 - I.49S2.7-15

4.7 -IOJ

23.7(4)».2

340(4)97.0001.8(4)7.6(4)6.1

3.220(4)17(4)394)00I4K4)02(4)

II40JSW4)1.49*4)

9.3

2.8(4)SO

:46(4)103.00W4)

8.3(4)76(4)NO

3.220(4)NO

39.700(4)65.6(4)

NO5.530(4)

13(4)19.400(4)

301(4)8.5(4)7.6(4)

UCLMIlM

O -i

«J a

fe

9 "§-3

iftt. «ff

ii3

S2

M > M i MM

O M M X O

• M M M M M M M > I M • M MM

!M M MM M M M

,M HI^ K i5K5f 5 IlL •

1,

-o-» ax»- «n — •-<u wontx » — »-

«n — •nt u

»-

! 11.

3.is55

• -•«•• *»• • • c «-u «t> • o«»•«•••• M« e e e

TABU IS

SUMNART 0' CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCEIN '0* THE50WILI ROAD LANDFILL. CM 10

(INORGANICS)

S.M.R. STREAM.ANOFILL SJR'ACE SUISURFACE '*•*•*•

CHEMICAL .IQUIOS SOILS SOILS »EDIMINT

ALUMINUM *ikTIMONT XARSINIC X3ARIUM XJERTLLIUM XCADMIUM XCALCIUM ECHROMIUM XC3SA1T ECOfftR ECYANIDE X1 A4MI 6IRON eLEAD XMAGNESIUM EMANGANESE E"ERCURY XNICKEL E3QTASSIUM ESELENIUMSILVER XSODIUM ESTRONTIUM XTHALLIUMVANADIUM XZINC e

x Selected aa en0 Not selected;i Not selected;

3X000XE0EE0E0EE0Ee*

EXX0E

aarical of potential

0

0

EbEE

EX

0E

eencor

0

000

E0EE

E0EE

E"

E0

0E

n.

STREAMSEDIMENT

0

0X0

E0EE

E0EE"

EX

0E

•LOORAOOSURFACE SURFACE 3N-SITE '(.AT.ATER WATER caOUNOWATER AREA

0

X0X

E0EE0E0EEEE

EX

0E

0

XXX

EEE

EXEEX

E

E0

0E

X

00X

EX

XE0

0E

X

00

E0EE0EXEE0

EE

E0

0E

4EEOMOREAREA

<

00D

E3EEo !EDEE

E

E0

bE

within backfround levels.biar* contaminant.

Not detected.E Essential nutrient used ea basis for re*oval in accorttanca Mitti USI*A Ration V specification•m (US!EM 19910).G.N.R. « Great mean River

TABLE If

ORAL TOXICITT CRITERIA K# CHMICAtl Of POTMTUL CCNCSRN

Chwncat

sioe«f«eter (SF> sr-eviaaneacmg/kg-dav)-' Ctaaaification

:actorSourca

RfO '»r«atOrgan Soyrca

-nctrtaintv:actor

ORAL

Organic CtiMicais:

AcanaentnaneAcatanaAntnracanaBwua<a)antnracanaBansanaBanso(a)Bvrana8«nto(D)fiuorantnana8«nia<g.n,i)Mryiana8«fue<K)fluorantfiana3 •rue ic acidBantvt aieonat2 -But anon* <«atnvt atnvi katana)SutvioanivtontnaiataCaroon Oisuifida•.•Chlara-i-fflatnyionanat

(4-CMoro-«-cr«souChtarooanianaChlaroatnanaChlareferaChrvaanaDOTQl-n-eutvtpntnalata0<-n-octyt pntMlataOibansa(a.n)anttiracanaOibanxoturan1.2-OicM1,4-Oietil3.3'-0«cmaraaansio:ina1.1-OicMoroatfiamcta'1,2-OieMaro«tMnatrana-1 ,2-OiehtaraatnanaOictiloreorooanaa

(1.T-, 1.2- . 1.3-, 2.2-)1.2-Otehtara1.3-QiOiloratrana- 1 ,3-Oiehioittnviontnaiata2,4-OiwttivtoiMnotEtriytbansanabtt(2-tthvinaxvnenthalata

M2-Haunonalnaana<1.2.3-c.d)pvranatsaoMrona4-Nafttvt.2-pantanora (NIK)2-Nattivtnaontfiaiana2-Natnvtonanai (o*craa*i)4-M*ttnrtpnana( <p-traaai)N-NitrraodipnanytaannaNMAtnatanaNitreMnzanaPCS* (tatai)PtntacfUorooflanatPhanantnraneOhanot

2.901-021.151*01

(a)

6.101-03•••

3.401-01(a)

2.401-02 (f)4.501-01

6. MI-02 (f)1.801-01

1.401-02

(a)4.101-03

4.901-03

7.701*00 (I)1 .201-01

3082*12820820

828282

1200C12C0

1282

082

12C

120828200

IRISIRISIRISIRISIRISHIASTIRISIRISIRISIRIS...IRIS!RIS• • •

...IRIS• . •

IRISIRISIRIS. • •

• ••

IRISIRISIRISHIASTIRISIRISIRIS......

MUSTHIAST...IRIS...IRISIRIS...IRIS...IRISIRIS............IRISIRIS• • •

IRISIRISIRISIRIS

6. 001-021. 001-013.001-01

-.......•• (a)

4.001*003.001-015.001-02 <b,c>2.001-01i.OOI-OI (c)

...2.001-02

1.001-02...5.001-04 (d)1.001*012.001-02 (a)

• »•

— (a)9.001-021 .001*01... • •1.001*01 (a)1. 001*022.001*02

* ••

• •*• ••

3.001-048.001-012.001-021.001*012.001*024.001*024.001*02

• •»

• ••

2.001-015.001*02

— (a)5.001*025.001-02...4.001*03 (f)5.001-04 (b.e)1.001-04 (•)3.001*02

— (a)6.001*01

livarkidnev/livnone eeaar........... .nalaUaforaatonecrttOtOXlivr/brainft tote*• - •

livarLivarliver lea•ertatityliver.Kidn• • •• • •

liverkidneykidneyhaemalliver.........kidnev•at* MTnaure/neealiver, manliverkidn/livarhairnet• »•

kidneyliver/kidney*••

neurete*naurecaB• ••

<batly Ntliver/kidnfatetailiv/kid• ••

fatal Mt

IRIS:RISIRIS• • *

IRIS• • •

...

...

IRISMEASTIRISIRISIRIS

HEASTIRIS

IRISHIASTIRISIRISHIAST

HEASTIRISHA...MASTHIASTIRISHIASTHIAST* • •

IRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRISIRISHIAST. ••

IRISHIAST*•*

IRISIRIS• •*

HIASTIRISdauntIRISHIASTIRIS

3,000',3003,000...

...

...

...1

'.000'.300',300'30. . •

1,0001,000...100

1,0001,000...

...1,0001,000. . •

1,0003.0001,000...

...

...10,000' ,0003,0001,0001,0003,0003,000...

...1,0001,000. *>•

1,0001,000...

10.00010,000

100100...100

TABLE!*

ORAL TOXICtTT CRITERIA fOR CHEMICALS Of POTINTUL CONCIRN

;•> anneal

'vrtneStvrenerttracnioroetnene( eercn i oroetnvi one )

Toluene1,1,1-TriehloroetnaneTncnloroetnenevinyl Chloridexyienee (total)

Slopefactor c$n(me/M-oav)-'

3.001-02 (f)5.101-02 (9)

• • •

1.101-021.901*00

w«i«nt-jf -Evidence

C'.ataifieation

38282

0082A0

SlOM: actorSource

IRISHEASTHEAST

IRISIRISHEASTHEASTIRIS

:*ron»c UfO(•ng/kf-oav)

3.001-022. 001-01'.001-022.001-019. 001-02 (b.or.351-03

• • •

2.001*00

'a rootOrgan

kidnov»SC/ I iv«rliverliver, maniiverliverCNS.aortai

?»0Source

;«is:?u:ms:»!«:RIS-<A

IRIS

.rcerta«nf•"actor

3.300-.3001,300 .

1,0001,000i.OOO

100inorganic Chopicals:AiuainuaAntiiaonyArtanicSariuBBtrvlliuaCMiiiJi (M«tar>CaoBiua (tooo)ChroMiuB III »no Compoundacnroanua vl ana CaMpounaoC/antot'.tad"•reurySi IvorStrontiUR.Thalliut and cuapounaavanadiuB

...

...2.001*00 (h)...4.301*00

(J)

(i)• • *

' • •

• • •

• • • •

• *•

..•'

• • *

* * *

• • •

A• • •

82...............820• • •

..•

0

. • .

...IRIS...IRISIRIS...IRIS• • •

IRISIRIS......IRIS...

...4.001-041. 001-03 (t)7.001-025. OOI-035.001-041.001-031.001*005.001-032.001.023.001-043.001-03

• ••

7.001-05 (k)7.001-03 (a)

* * •

blood CHOP.skininc Vtotal tutorkiontykiontvLivorCHSnyolin dtfCMSOdnav•rtyria• ••

Strua.Baldtivr.kldnt

HCAST••CASTHCASTIRIS!RIS!RIS:»uIRIS:RISIRISIRISKEASTIRIS«••

H6ASTKIMT

i:.00ui

J100•o•o,300;oo500...

1,0002

• • •

3,000100

NO data availablt.*|A

I to that of(i) NO oral toxicity data art avoilabla for that* MN'a. Honovar, a turroooto valua (for carcinoojnaborao(a>pyrana: for noncareinoftm aquat to that of napntnaiant) has Man aaaionod.laaod on route to rouco extrapolation.lain* rteonaidtrtd by oral RfB Mortfroup.

(d) value it for *,*'-DOT.(t> undtr rtviw bv RfO/tfC uorkoreup.<O undtr review DV CRAVI Uorkoroup.(9) Quantitative eattomea were not eatcutatad by OUVi VorkarouB.cn> A unit risk of 51-05 (ua/u-> hop Man propoatd By the rtak naaaaaam fonja and ttiia i n Maamatliin naa

oean tcAoauiod for SAt rovioM. This ia equivalent to 1.73 (a«/kf-dey)-1 aaaumna a 70 k| individualinaeet 2 L of vatar oar day. Th1i ia roundaa) to two ai«nif1eant fiourta duo to uneortainty.vaiuo ia dertvoo) froai currant drinkinf natar ttanoard of 1.3 a«/L; drinkint wotor doeuaam eontluaM toxicity infMOTO ininaauatt for calculation of an RfO for ceepar. Thfa ia oquivolont to 1.Til-02 a«/kfday aaaumnt a 70 k«individual drtnka 2 l/day. rni« rounaa) to *<OI*02 dm to uneortainty.Thtro it imnaouata tvidanc* for carcinoajonicity of thia caa«Hund by Wo oral routo.valut it thalliuB in tolubio talta.laaod on Aroelor 12M.

(b)(e)

(i) tion

( j )(k)( I )(•> oarivtd by Cl on Aroolar 1014.NOTl: IRIS * Intaajratod llak Information tvttap • March 1, 1991.

HIAST * Hooltft Iffoat* AMdMdam luajairi Tablaa • 19*1.MA * Hooltn Adriaary • Mar on 1917.

TABLE 1?

;NNAUTION roxtcirr CRITERIA FOR CMINICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCIRN

unit Ink (UR> of-€vio«nct:i*»iine»tion

jnit InkSource

:.lronic HfCSource

.netrtatr;ictor

:NNALATION

iraanieirmapiTntntAcetoneftntnraceneienienoaenxo(a)antnrecene3enio<a)pyreneSenio< D ) f I uor intneneaerwoie.n, i JDenMtne9enso<k)fluor»ntneneSenioic acidSensvi ticanot2-lutanone (metnvt ttnvt

3.30C-06

1.701-03

000A3212120120

kttanc)

.•Chloro-3-metnvioneneiChlorooenieneChloreetnaneChloroformChryeeneOOTOi-n-octyl ehtnalate0<bonto(a,n)antnriOJbaruoturan1,2-OieflloroDonsane

2.3019.701

,3' -Otehlorowniidirw

cia*1,2-0icftlorootnene•rona*1,2-0ichloreetneneOiehloroeroponn

(1.1-, 1,2-. 1,3-, 2,2-)1.2-OicMoreoroeone1.3-Oichloroorooonatrena-l,3-0ichlofOietnyipntnaiate

OS

OS

3.701-05

ot»(2-€thv»n«*vi )gfttn«l«t«f \ uerantn«rw

2-Hexlndono<1,2,3-c,d)DyreneIsoBMrene<>-Metfiyl.2-oentanano (NISC)2-NotAvinaontnai one2-MetHylonenol (o-croaai)

. . (p-eroMl)Ethvl cetera (2-

H-NitreaodiahenyiMino

NttraMnxwwPCIt (total)Ptntacfl i orooncnoi

PhenolStvrcrwTttrKntoroctntm

( pcrcti i oroctnyi •»• >Tolv«n*1,t.1-Tr<ditorMtMfMTr1eitlorMtn«minyl Chloridayl«f» (total)

S.7M-07 (b)J. 201-07 (c)

1.701-M (d)S.Aflf-OS

128282• • •

1200c12C0

8282

012

82C

0820

8200D82120082A0

HISHISIRISIRISIRISMIASTIRISIRISIRISIRIS

IRIS

IRIS

IRISIRISIRIS

IRISIRISIRISHIASTIRISIRISIRIS

MUSTHIAST• •*

IRIS

IRISIRIS• * •

IRIS

IRISIRIS

IRISHISIRIS

NiASTIRISIRISIRISHIASTHIAST

IRISIRISHIASTHIASTIRIS

3.001-01• * •

1.001-022.001-02

CHS• * •

fttotoiod/liv«r

2.001-017.001*01

5.001-01

2.001*02• • •

1.001*00• •» •

• • •

8.001*02• • «

2.001-03

MtUv/ktd• • *

ki

(US,'IISHIS:ns

HISHEASTHEAST:ns•<EAST

HEAST

HISHEASTIRISHEASTHIASTHEAST

1,000

•,ooo10,000

Iiv/kld

tivw/kidn

2.001*00 CW.Irrit1.001+00 tivar

3.001*01 CM, rn0

HEASTHIASTIRISHIAST

HISIRISIRISHISHISIRISIRISHIAST

IRISHIAST• • •

IRISIRIS

HIASTHIASTIRISIRISHIASTIRISIRISIRISIRIS

HIASTHIASTIRIS

HIAST

1.000100

1,000

30

300

1,000

3,000

1001,000

100

> NO oata avauaott.

TABLE 17 I

INHALATION TOXICITY CRITERIA K* CHtHICALJ OF POTENTIAL CCNCSIN

zitmtcai

: "organic CMemtcais:

AlhjainufliAntinonvA riant eSarius3ervlln«:ac*t«JiChroniui HI ana COMDOWMScnroanj* »l ana CoMDOunosCvaniooutadMtreurv, inorganicC i 1 uAa*

Strontiun'haUnJii and con.poi.niMvanadiia*

w«i«nt-unit Risk (UR> ur-evidanca Jnit «is«

(ug/«J)-i Classification Source

...

4.30C-03 (•>

2.401-031.801-03

1.2M-02

...

...

...

...

A

8281

A• • •

82• • •

0

• * *

IRIS

IRISIRIS• • •

IRIS

IRIS

...

IRIS* • •

Z^ronie RfC!iTNj/ati)

• • •

5.001-04• • •

2.001-0*2.001-0*

• • •

...3.001-04

•-- <f)

'argatOrgan

CanearcanearFttOtO*• • •

.nasal Mjeanasal njeo• • •

CHSneurotox• • •

• * •

»fCSourea

^EASTIRISIRISNEASTIRISIRISxEASTlEAST:RISIRISHlASTIRIS

HlASTHEAST

.nctrtsmi:ictor

. . .

...1,300

• • »

300300* * •

(* ' *

...

...

Ca) las*a on 4,4-OOT.(b> unatr rtvicv ov CRAVl uornvrouo.(c) Ouantttativ* MtiMtts MT* not calculated By OUVI uorkfroi*.(d) lasod on •ctsoothZM OOM.(•) An aotoretion factor of 30X Is used to calculatt tho unit risk froa tfto slop* factor.(f) lasod on (nailtua in loiuM* salts.

•£: IRIS > Intatratod disk Infonaation SvstM • Marcft 1. 1991.HlAST * iMitn Cf facts Assaaasvnt Suaaary Taolaa • 1991.

TABUU

OFw :HCINTI»AMC« *Ct.3 f{0jnAL MtllMUN CONTAKIN«*T IE/ELS

:Csnetntrn ions retorted '" -.q/ 1 )

.AND".-.

:'emieai

:rganies:

ictton*jenientscnzoic acid!-3utanone:araon Oisuifide:iiorooeniene:T, oroetnane• . ' -3icnioroetnane• .2-Oienioroetnene (total)3:s(2-Ethvi«exvi)ontnaiate' t'.' acnioroetnene• • . ' -''icnioroetnane. -vi Cfiioride<viene« (totao'-• enioroetnene

: -organic*

AkkintnumaeryiuumChromiumlead

Silver

: •; dorado"arti ton ™

irttnmettc•<ten

NONONONONONONONO

2.73

NONONONO

3

24••• •

2.4

"

Plat9 wens

"annul:*tectea

Concentrations

NONONONONONONONO

3.83

NONONONO

5.3

23.7• •• •

2.7

"

:n-Si t* "oni

irttnmettcxean

52.5

24'.52.52.57.3

125

..22.i3.4* . *

0.7NO

501.86.83.5

4.6

tgr-nq yei IS

•axiimjn "jiinun7ttected :cntammant

Concentrations -*veis

S.S2.7

•42.52.7i

.3.3104

.7.83.32.2

23.3•0.8

•NO

732.4

11.524.3

4.6

:

•oo

' Jm

*

::6*

•0,0005

50 • 2001

10050'5

100

(a)

(b)

(b) t c i s )( P . C ):o>(a):a)(D)(a)

(b.d)(P,e)(b)(a. a)(Al.f)(b.d)

•- « not availadla.so • *iet MtMtad m si(P) ProOMM.*L * Action Ltvan.

Bias.

(a) 40 CF», Part 141-National Primary Drinking yatar Regulations. 559-563, 620-621.(b) Environmental Prottetion Agency (EPA). 1991. National Primary Drinking yatar Regulations; Final Rult.

vol. 56. NO. 20. Wednesday, January 30. 1991. 3526-3597.gency (EPA) 1990. National Primary ana Secondary Drinking water Regulations;

Svntnettc Organic Chaaicait ana inorganic cnemicais. Praeaaaa Rule, federal Register, 'oi. S3, NO. 143,••a. juiy 25. 1990.

ca) Secondary XL.(e) The MCL for lead is in effect until December 7, 1992 whan the Action Level Mill taka its olace.(f) environmental Protection Agency (CPA). 1991. Drinking yater Regulations; Maximum Contaminant level Coals

and National Primary Drinking yatar Regulations for lead and Cooper; Final Rule. Fedarai Registar;/oi. 56, NO. 110, 26460-26564. Friday, Juna 7. 1991. Standards uiil go into effect OacasMr 7. 199].

TABUE19

SUMMAKY OF rOTKNTIAI. HtAl.TH RISKS ASSOt IYIM> WITHCUMUENT LAND USB CONDITIONS

HOAD i-ANOHi i.HUtCt HCIGUTS.OHIO

CUMflTi rr* rife**

> at Oaiiit SwUc« Soil

CMWMT >Wi(»)

3fcOIIE 092E01NC

Efltcudt

Coma «* teu» A MM W«wKVM SwUtc WMM

U«wSw«b»WMr(4)

9E074E012EOJ

IbOJIE 04IEO)•EOJIEOJ

4E04JtOl

T«Ml faf«w«1lM i AH to tie)

iofOMMcS«tecSa4*OMMS^M*S«I

DttMlCoMMI

DmMlCtNiMi

•f GMM tliiiai Ri«N S«|I«CMk SBCMI A SMrfjc* W«ct

MVM S«af«>.c WMCIKwwSwfaMWMiW

2EOS

It 01JEW3E01NC

6E01IE 06IE 013EOJ

IE 01

It 04IEOJJE04IEOJJfc 0641:04IE 04IE 01

Taul E^MMM* TWonfli All PMhMyt A*wv< (c> 4EOJ <l ItOI

I uf 2

TABLE

SUMMARY UV POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS AV»<>« UTtl» WITHCURRENT LAND USE CONDITIONS

. ROAD I.ANIIHI I.HUBER HEIGHTS. OHIO

Ntaity RnUt* (EUmfe rtrt)

Ufcauoi of GMMN* WMCI fro* R« IWelU

'*"»«> ««nin- «f — r-*-j "-"j "— ~— g "»-"-

DHMlCMUd««kGfOM4WMMWWtSlMMwmcUiMcMqMUfi W«ll(h|MM>«f n*fra«Gi««MiMHlbvcf Bwk

of L ftMl VOC ISHMIHOM (c)

EiMaiLMHlM*CMKCT Rhfc M

NT7E-072EOSNC

2tO«2EOJ7E06

H«ui4 U4ci for

NC3t02NC

4E067E046£tOOIE 02

AM Fnilrrtirf W«M PMkway* Akov« (•) 2E 0)2EOJ

WTfce«•»

(b)n*h«rt!•*•! •'MyMi

rukfcpeMAMMfecfUf

r or MI capoMM to MMWM o*A luiaN M4n leu •>•• MM aiAcaiM *al IMM

(e) 1What*4iiakMMiippabaiM4. i«nic«laily*ieioilMcaaitrvMiv«U

AcMirall may icsuh laDO* aie «slik*ly lu uccwMi«M4eliac4. »a»»y

I by M MHMli •• low «4ea •! MigMiate.(•DTiMCMMMfctipMumly Aieto AMdon |U|««M 1254 (TCBi). a . iUuM+ botk Aiocion arc likely lube

to la»cMr»ipMC «M» Aiocto IMP, rfai rfl bo* •»»•» ««•!••»< ••••) <M Joy, haot fa Atockn lloO(e) ll u bif>l| »rti>j|| HIM • gh u****l *«*U he iiM*ManiMly »«ya»n< <M » all of ifct» paA%>»yt

i pa*»«y* «w* (•«!»•«»< at ikowm abu«* i« acc«4«aCT «MMh I IStPAI**. Aiitimtx (ClMKM I99lt>)

NC - Not Calculated. Ckcnucali UMKiatcd wiili cultci cafcuogcMc ui •aacaicMWfcMC cffcm wcic Mulael»cn< fa e»afci>uo« iVomfc t» Ikm «*a> «iay. x were •

6t.OOAEtOO

Souicc -

P«|c 2 of 2

TABLE 2t

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL UEAl.TU RISKS ASMM UTtll WITHFUTURE LAND USB CONDITIONS

LL KOAU 1-ANUHI I.MU*UHEKiltTS.OUH>

R«c*pl*r

Ufftr£•€•• LHMfaacCMKW Rhfc (•)

HUM* U4«i forNwmvbMftaic

Effects (b|

kci4caul IHUUM «* OM* Swfac* Sari («>lS«4l

l(«

I WMtt

2fcO$4EM2EOS7EM2E073E06

SLOJSE044E02JEtOO2E02SE02

IE Jt.OO

(•)Tb*H|p*fb

(b)TW

(c)Th*

fcvitiil «MM* blrtiair CMCCI ntk KftcwM* ib* •MiiioMl frnbihilny itut ••

I CIBOMMV 10 MMMMVM of

TW OMV lick it •Wbeta fcr btMD4*»|MM. OM •!*• MM pMM PAH*.Tb* b«*4iukMMHHi« bMMtf. p»ninib*ly «HC lolbt CUMCTVIUVC U*iUiU CMUMMU maikl iue4. M uwybe OMWUMM4 by M MMdi M tarn «4cn of ••fMMAi.

(c)U fart. *m m» I of p p*b>«yi <M coU« b» cum4eic4 1.»

Souicc -

TABLE 21

M . M M A K Y <>f MISk bASKU ( l.fc AM »' I r \ I I

POWUI KOAIU.ANIIHM

Remedial Action Objective

Current Land Use Conditions• Nearby residents hum infcalilinn ofof landfill |u emiuion

• Nearby ickidenu horn ikrnulcontact with the backwatersof the tircal Miami River*

• Nearby rc>ukMs fiorn dermalconind lo Scream A surface walcr*

• Nearby residents horn ingcuion offish catif «* from me backwater aicaof tbc deal Miami River*

• Nearby rctidenu frum tnlulaliun ufvolatile* from puund water

Future Land Ihc Curtilions• OMHC res idenu from Mg csiion ofsoil

Reference

Table 4 'Reaiital of Concent 111=1 I*-* Risk Itt •

liihibil 1 Vn vl 1 lufule

lukibil 2 licryllium4.4 OOPAiuclur 1016Amilur 1254

li*kltM2 llciylliuili

4.4 DOTAmdur 1016Afucluf 1254

lunik«2 IKiyllium4.4 ourAniclor 1016AiuchM 1254

lubibMl IntlUi iteiK: 025

likbibu 4 lk-ii/ui«)pyrcacBcnxo( 1 )anllMaccacHcn2u(b)fluoranibaiellcn/iKli )lluoi«nlbcneCkrykcncI)ibta2o(4.b)4uilir«.cnclaJeau< 1 .2.3-cd)pyiea«

S<iil In1 Mi>k !• 4 Risk

U 1

20 1 060 1 04

0 12

0 J II 60 1 04

0 12

11 Ml 60 1 04

**

II OSoosoosoosoosoosoos

l*-4 Ri»k !• * Ui»k !• 4 1

illilJ i

III2tM)

JS6I16 54

III21 HJ

35 613659

III21 Kl

IS 611659

SS555SS

• Oniuc ictwlcnu from inlwdalioii uflandfill g M cmbtiou

1-jihtbtlSBcnirtnc OU

I -'12

I ol 1

TABLE II

SUMMARY (» MlSk I1ASKIM I I AMU' I I \ I I

Hcfcrcncc11

Kcmctful ACIMM Objective

•Uasilc iciulcnu limn mgciltuiloffiouiMl wtia**

Table thimvalaHonirni IIUI HMRisfc

IUbilitl6 AimiitiMiy

Ail tin; I l1*4 Risk IMRi* IttHhk It 4

iHNmiJCkrywac U.OUHNI7 0 (III)Vmyl ilU..i*k 000004 0004Ancnit OIMMUM OUMBeiylliuni OUMKI2 illlij

•OnsiictcsMkau bom dermal ••• Chty-KMcoauci with (HMwtf waiei**

• Soil cleutup level* provided due to poleMial lurbcc water cuolamiaani tuurcck btinj isulalcil areas ul wiib ami IHI cuncnl UM: kurUcc v> irfl*iafnttt>iln> IMVMA tum ddcciefl dmiM we Rl MntptoAM.

• *Futurc I«M! me nska bom |IOIHM| water bated on eapotunc lo Icachalc iiin>lilucnl>•**CtcaiiMpk*eU specific (>« ihu pathway arc MM calculated because (I) dermal capukuic Kui>la»>.cis MM yel (variable from the U.S. ETA a«d (2) giuum! water will be remediated lascd, u*ruks annriaird with Minima ol gioimd water.

2ul 2

TABJ-t 22

CHEMICAL SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OHKKI KVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQIURKMt N I s

POWEI I . KO.-UH.ANDHI IIIIIBKR HEIGHTS. OHIO

Water

OrgMlc i h«Mk«l

Aioclur 1016Anxlor 1254BoucncBouo(i)uilhfM:cncBen2o(b)fliM]( anthem:Bauo(k)f1uuruiihencBauo(a)pyrciKChryscnc4.41 DOTDibcnioUJOioihrKciicIndcmX 1 .3-cd)pyfc»cTnchhmicihcn«Vinyl chloride

lawgaak Ckcnkal

AiiumunyAnenkBerylliumMercury

SDWAMCI.

OIJUI5000050005

01)00)0 00020 00020 00020 0002

NA0000)0000400050002

001/0005005

OOOi0002

MCLC.4 mo /I kiniH'K^I

00000000

NA0000

0003(b)000

RCHA

"MCI.(mft/l.)

NANA

0005NANANANANANANANA

00050002

NA005NA

0 (*>.!

Oitly non /cim MCl.C.b uiujcr Uic SUWA *K putciiiially AKA.K

TABLE 23

STATE OF OHIO: SURFACE WATER STANDARDS

FOR THE POWELL ROAD LANDFILLHUBER HEIGHTS, OHIO

I if. MaMt.t i Warm Witer Habitat) (uaJU

OuteUU M«<n« Tot

Chemical

Orgmmte Chtmutl

Arador 1016Arador 1254

BenzaajandmceoeBeaan b)fluonoiDeaeBeaKNk))fluoraiuneaeBcDUxaJpyKoeOuyaeoe4.4'.DDTDOnzaaJD

TricoloroestaaieVinyl cHlonde

Cktmicmi

AoiimooyAneaicBeryUiian

Mailman

NANA

1.100NANANANANANANANA

1.700NA

650360

JO-DayAverage

0.0010.001560NANANANANA

0.001NANA75

NA

190190

Wattr Sunniv fug/1.1Health Mliloi Public Afrlealtiiral30. Day Zoae Water WaterAverage Maxima* Sapply* Sapply6

0.000790.00079

7100.310.310.310.310.31

0.000240.310.31807

5.250

4.300NA1.17

NANA

2.100NANANANANANANANA

3.400NA

1.300720

e

005

0.0280.02S0.0280.0280.028

0.000240.0280.028

5.02.0

14 NA50 100

0.068100

NANANANANANANANANANANANANA

• Value* preaoued are bated on huaaa healtn 30-day average,b Value* preaauedare baaed oo 30-day avenge.c Values can be esamaaed baaed on waaer hafdneu and Tabfca 7-10.7-11. and 7-12 of Wi

Standards. Ohio EPA Refutation OAC 3745-1-22.r Quality

TABLfc 24

STATE OF OHIOLOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARi

POWE1 I ROAD IANDHLLUUBKB HEIGHTS, OHIO

L •<•(*»•

Rumcud «•• la opal

Hoodplkw*. (MMI 01 fitvel ptU.

»uu <lup<w*l nu«

Open bunun| |Mol>ibtu4

New solid WMU UndfilU u< ci|>wuiunof cuMiaf toli4

Etplouuu |u

OA( 3M5A. B. C. D

OACA. B

OA( i/45 i l - l iB. E

Aitu of »ci»m>c wiij Kouit:lc4 tMu>| blTSW-.

I octiton. tiling at new ground New well* mutl be totaled•••uaMMd la pnv«M

<)A( 1M) 14 IIA. B. I

<»At JMJ 9<MA. B

TABLE 15

A (!!••»

AH S

STATE OF OHIOACTION SPKOK1C ARAJU

POWtl I MOAD LANDFILLUUBEB BEIGBTS. OHIO

Ati polluuoa DUUMK

Good injinacnin lUct bu|M

iinuuun couuul humHUMitt (kUI *VUW>k

A* and wild panM urtlau

Imynrlmnn»|uucaieiu (u•HMbalMK.

Dc«(B md ofxiuiuu irfhUBiikui

OAC 3(41 IS 06

15 07, A

OAC 3745 I* 02. B. C

OAC 3745 it O/. A. B. I

OAC 3 74) 310)

OAC 374) )4 I). A -C<*>

OAC J4

.y pooaduc*. |te

M •••! ID W*M ^Mtf^ H OAC 374)- I74O.

Vuiblc cauuMiu ind UUUMKX

Mejmcuant on pwttcuUu cmuuoui

AiiiMtfM ui ijtuliiy lUndwili ta

•• >pu|,|y SUllOMOl lul

OAC J 741 i4 1Z, A. B. C. UOAC 174 > J4 J)

OAC 374J M )?. AOAC1I4) J4 J 2 . A I -OAC )M) J4 )SOAC 3i4i M Jo. A K»

OAC 3745 17 OS

OAC 3745 \ l - J l

OAC 374) 17 10

OAC 3/41 i; i)i

OAl U45 U i,!

TABLK 25

An(Cort'4)

Ktaho«t» fa (felaiiuuni camplwife •Uowatfc wllui tetnto

Sulfur lilO&lttc Ullt>IC«lt IIM4Ul4MUlg

AMBAME ^MMA'- - m — • " •'

Sullur Uiuxuk cimuiun iiuoi

Open burning iuu<Uid> in nun-

Anbtau ui qudny lUiklMtti uklouae.

Cwnm dcgitde *u ifuiiiy whatii efuil to

liaOAC374S-2l-OL

Conioi at cimuxmi uf cMtxm

AntacM uf au*lwy juwUnli farMnpaAMito.

Mahodi fw incuurcincm ol uiuogen

Cwnal <k(i«>lc «i uualiiy whatUUUlg fMl«y M BfKl to W

Nttntfea dtaiuk cmtuioit annul.

fjnuiimn conaul pfogrtm i( CHIU 0 Utarn fm *y or nan W Mr i

Pravwtc* kuAwiilyVMIHM37M.

( uuavutLy Juuia rule* tin!

. pif>c*. H«ai. etc.

Au pollullUtl IUIU4IILC

VCJ^1 emuMafi cotiixol.

OAt 3 / 4 5 1104

(IAI JM5 II 0V A

OAC ) / 4 5 II 06. A U

OAC 3N) -''04 A l>

OAC 3J4) , I 01

OAC 1741 .a 05

OAC )M5 ?.! 4)1

OAC ms , mi

OAC ) /45 14)2

OAC J / 4 5 :I04

OAC U4i ii 4*

OAC ))45

OHC 37M .0

OHC 6 I U I

OAC i /4) 15 vJ. A

OA< J74) 21 O9OAC 1)45 1141]

tallt

TABLE J$

I .ewittlc Removal AiUtliuul ponui utfuf naiiiNt unl

I jiicigciiry c»|Uif>iiial.

Uttign ol unk tytuau cony<»rnn.

iM* « tekt. ctoiur* wd M«-

Provwle* uAacily lo pioxcuf lu>viatelMM W My MaiM •( Ck laJ7J4

Provide* MOlHVly lo iuvuu|«ic

Naiiaui imclb HIM! ululrucuoa/pntfcwia of ••uvway ff clubMd

tiptonvc |u munil<mn| pUn and

OAt l / l l M) 44 A.

OAl ) / 4 5 14 12. A. U t .ItU>AC IJ45 S4 JJOAt 3)41 J4 MOAC 374J $4 J1 AOAC 1)4 1 54 52. A I-O A C 1 J 4 S S 4 5 5OAC 1 '45 J4 W A !<»>

C J / 4 5 S592 . A FOAC J141 JJ91. AC. IOAC J745 H M. A. B.OAC 1M5 )S »). A l>OAC J Ml Si 96. A.B. C It. tFOAl 1U5 55 1)7. A. B<»»

OAC J)45 JJ !«<•>

OAC }'45 2J 14

OHC I'M 10

OHC U6

OKI:

C^ndutotu lot dupoul attaiMifcnn «•«• Ii«c4 • 40 O H

Au polluuuii IIUUUH.C

Enmuioa cundoti (« tugiuvc ikul

AlkMibk nicllktli at Mtlwl wulc

ILJAC ) / 4 5 I) Ul. A

OAl U45 1701. Al. A2. b. I)

OAC W4S 27 05. A. B C

) I

TABLE IS

AclUn*

Claim wub Wuu Ttx&utal infarniMiun tod uiuury

CufUVUCUPII ipCl

atMtry UMlfilb.

Stnury Undfill opatuoiktl

Sanitary landfill and (round wata

Fnal cloaura and >*iuury landfill

fujKloMoc cue. Miuury Uul/>U

Pcnu4 infcnnMun and all haianlmii

foam inlonmtiu« lui til baZM<fc>ui

HabfllAflliVC fdJUMCAKJIlJ |i

Gcnatl Kttlytu o< ItttMilnm wuic

fc^M^^TtOfl FTMMBfCltWTBf

PcufR and ufxi u»4i ol tuoidutuwtaM UoliiM*.

Emergency ojufiiui*.

t Hello*

()A< 1743 i/06. B I

OM JMi ./ U«. I l> IIOAC1I4) Jill. A. B. G

OAC )74J 2706. B TOAC114S2I-M.O HOAC 174J 11 09. N. 0OAC 17452? II V B.C..OAC 1141 2? 14. A

UAC J74J ;/ 10 B.« . U

OAC J74J iJ II. A. B. ti

OAC 1745 iM4. A

J74S

OAC 374J 10 44. B.

UAC J/45 V4 I). A<*>

<IA( I74S M IS A C<a>

OAC J741 14 17. A

OAC J745 14

OAC J745 >4 3i. A, B.C. I)OAC3J4JM JJOAC 1741 54 MOAC 3741 M IIOAC 1741 14 )7 AOAC 3)45 54 52, A I-OAC 114) 54 M. AOAC3W M J5OAC 1745 $4 M A !<*>

TABLE 2S (continued)

CUuun ijcjicnl tluiure pcvfumtntc »ui»J«iltut f"i-*~" ouu laolily.

Cmilcjiu ul > louac plan and liuaiiViu

I Hipaul/ilc£u»ujiiuuiiu« ul»*t *ed>

SubnninoB ol survey phi f allow ingfla»i»» •KJii4>in IMMMI u» ic*«id

Pott C|OM*TC CMC tinluic otf*opa\y

tfiat tlo»«c plait tid«nitUuo

Notice 10 Loul Land Authurily.

Provide! tutiMiiy hi piiuccuc (ot

3734.

Apjxovtl o| pUiu Iw u<

binuiton conUuU tat (UfMivc duM

Allowable mctiMdi o( tolid wulc

l>Al J J 4 5 )i ||. A U.

DA( U4i 11 12. U'*>

HA« (Ml i^ 16**'

t»At : JMi-JJ 17. B«»»

OA« H4J 31 II. U<*>

O AC 1745-51 19. B'1*

»)Al I74J 1/01. A l>UAC :i/<5 J /OJ . A IOACSNJ5J05. A. BOAt JMJ }/ 10. A,B('*I

OAf Ji)4J If 12, A. U<«»

J? 17

OKI' J/14 IU

OKI 6 1 1 1 41oac DM 02OAC J745 JJOAC 1743 5244OAC 1745 59

OAt 1/43 IJ ill A

OAC )M5 I I 01. Al A2. B. I

OAC 1745 17 03. A. B. C

TABLE 25 tcuotiwwd)

AclUBt

(OMd)

Saiuury landfill opaaoonal

Opaaui| lequuciiiaiu mil uiutary

Cl l i i l on

IMS 27 U6. B. I) 7 4 3 2 > O I . C.I) I I1743 27 0$. C. P II. I. I

OACOACOACN OOAC JM5 2> 12. A. B D I:M. N

OAC !•>. A I . N

D*ca Dttduffc ofTlMHM

Aui of wiui puUuuoa fn

Compliance wuh national clflucm

Surface wala aiulyuuU a»J u4kuu>n

Surface watai <liall inc«l "five"

i IMC dui|piai<i «u. (

Ohw NPOES panm ioi|uucinua

Dudw|c pofoM tot POTW and prc-

Coiwavaacy dutnci ruUt and

Wala (Juakfy CfMaia lot JKWUO by

Ai ml «aia pa HIM uiiaia•ir Mhiy Muted »id km

MuiiiMmc4MU*nui>«ii Icvcb lui

MMIIIUHI UKiunwuua IcvcU fut

iu^it u«jmlu«

OHt : 61 1 1.04

OKI' 6 1 III 042

I I A < ) J45 I Hi

OA( J)45 Ul IMOAC IMS 01 OSOAC J7«S 01 04

(IA< JM5 01 21OAC174IOI I)

OAC J74IS 3)

OAC 1M103 Ul

()K( 61111 IV

OAC 1HJ

OAt

IIA( 374) II II. A. U

ii i/. A

OAC m) ii . t A

OAC t/!5 II .4 A t

TABLE IS

(.11.II...

Tnaliucw SyilciaEffhMUCoM.)

(»A( JM5

Hiuviticj autoiily lu puittnc |uivtolMMWi of *>y t«ctia> of CM|4a37J4

Au puituliun IIUU«IHC

EnituioB conlioli tot fufitiv

Suuury hndfill ojioauaul

CiovMtu turtnny to wvciUf Me

OAC )Mj;i? I)

Ot*C »m 10

l > A t ) / 41 150; A

OAC 1745 I7OI Al. AZ BO

OAC 1145 27 06. B. COAC 1)4) 2707. A.B I IIOAC 1)4)2701 C.D IIOAt 174)2709 C.F. IU. UN. OOAC IMi 2) I.! A. B. 11. L, II.I. I. N

OKI' Jm ut*>

VMM MWVto piMir liokk <• ulfiy. of *§

ItUlknatoa ami amuitfoiatx u

nn>nrr«l

OAC J/4i I) Ot Al.

IIA< >M!i 160, B. C

Oigwuc inaflm cuiuiiufi(kul •viihMc

MI tpitliry wlta cw <9>l l» « |K

in UAC 374S- 17.02.

Vuiblc cilltuiuiu «kl mu»i»c

HcMiicuoni un }><nuulau camuuiubo« lucl buauig ujuywt at

AntiiciU ui >|u*iiiy

OAl' tm 21 U A, U. I

(I AC JU:>

dbuuik.

OAC

OA( IMS U H<

IIA( H41 H (I

I 'M >m ID n

TABLE 25 (c«wlimM)d)

4 llcllu*

* 141 * 'ulloUHMI UK!T.ii liana (Com.)

Mcdtwli ta ikiaiiiiiuig KMifMB Mtowrfjw wUui <keiuk

Sulfta ilionJc uioiciii nuulu«ui|

Sulfur dioiuk CUUUHKI baulHVrUIOU.

Open burning tuit-Uutb ui nun

AnbMMfcif quUtfy MawiMitt udI lui cartMi •namnlt. otoae.

CamM Otfnif «u ifultly whacfllBMg fMiMy » ofual h>« fguui•M McatM) io OAC 374J-2I -02.

Conirol of cmuiioni o( cxtion

lor

ncuMcmenu of n>«i>|ca

C*mal dcptik MI <fiuiiy wbaeMMWK •Mhly M afMl to or*M iptafiMl in OAC 374S-234I

<IA( H4i It 1M

OAl > J 4 i II UV A

UAt: JUS II U6. A Ci

DM )N)

OAt JM3

OAC 3Mi

OAl J /4J

OAC J)45 il til

OAC 174}

» A I)

CIIIUIMMI canuul.

Ennuioa conuol pupim i( caul 0 2)UKU par 4«y <• nuc •! wrcaaUMUMRU M wbufc MI i

OAC )/4)

OAI 1/45

A« «kl w*ia paiiHMI <fMMy Mmkiit ••! lotMctaofcgy.

OAC IMi i' U». I'. I) IIOAC J J 4 J 2; 19. A L. N QOAC )J45 27 12. A. B I). I . II. L. M. N

(MC U4i SI Ui

TABUi IS (cortitttuxi)

Acllax

CuCullectionuulT«sma«i(Ca*.>

UAM

|lk<HUlC4 IIIUIIIXIIIUIIIC JKIIO.ll Hull 1

|CMnMr ny nnm»ti»t t*tm&*»•rule wiUun* >r«j CMMdan4 M•fMTMOT of * twragc hcilriy.

Gcnail uulyiu of h*uiiioui wuic

l oalion HiiMtMili lu hJitntnii wtuc

Dui|n and opauiuii ol lu/mfcmi

Emergency ajuipiiienl.

Provide* lurtturuy 10 piatccKc foi»M>4in<nu»f »*y«aniMiaf CfcynJ734

ProviJej aulbuil) 10 utvcMigiwI « «iy >it* vfein A*

i WUM my oaMliMi* • UMCJIk 4M Mliiy. *• *IM«B

ft ftf llM tfM¥UVfM^K9A,

Allow ibk Hlt*J»a» o< «ali4 wnjU

tiuMuli >ub>uiuivc ic^iuieinaui lot

(JllalU*

OA« U4S 5O44. B I l['>

OAl 1/45 52 14<*>

OAI D4J-54 II. A*1*

OAC IMS 54 15. A * <*'

()A< IMi 54 17. A < • ' *

OA< 1M5 54 32. A. B.I

OAC IMS 54 M(Mr IMS M IIOAC 1)45 54 17, AOAC 1)45 54 5i, A KOAC 1)45 54 54. AOAC 1)45 54 55OAC l)45545o. A I

OAr 1141 JJ I4<*>

OKI ; M 4 I O

OAC 1/45 2701. A. b I

OAt IMi V>44. B.

n roi

oi tfi! ,-mo

?, H'•», W.'i'i •H',",

(»|M I? 5KC ,1VO

> m PM p^»m bipf* •*((Mttm.lVn wwf<" «*nm Mnnl n.« I.™ «v

•• i* MMM » An? j»d Mm• >VO {r n I""3 I' >u»«Hn«l |oiiwi>3 unimiitt|

>N I»A» mq)t»Mic< fl'V VCH t { » / F JV() moq |onw» uonnuiJ Dora

.IVf)

ft (ttodiif »•( ratfd |o (WAonMv

|»)H K ?KI 1VU rrx inmi |n<>ninO(ln|Kt« iiHm()

(»)CI V {I K/f 3VO

f.p fl V >|-« 5tn .IVO mun lJ^mn rirr i..)* !;

<»)V n « im ivo

'<••')v" t mp tpoiud nun ummiiwii rupnof |

TABLE 25

fluimcin (Com ) tilabluh lutmumve ia|iiBciiuil> tatkuxdoui«*jl««uUic«i«l<lupuMJpcnuu.

AtklMuaul pctiiui uilixniMtui *i«J

IdeMifica niuioum liine pcnodi Uui •(•MOWN my Kn«i«lMf •»<«<>«•wute wftteau baifl awik*Be4 M

* ktoi*(c licikly.

Gcoaal Muly»u uf htimtom wtut

Hn«nl-"n MIMC iKilny pa DM

DeJtfn and opcnuuuWMMUolMM*.

cM*|a^v pncuhxa. fh*

Dtiign of unk

I «HNiU mfuicuuMj tut

Envuu iuuiilM<l

UAI IMS so 4 u i /

UA< J74J >0 *4. « '^**

OAt' 3)4i 3.J i-i**1

UAC 3745 M 11 A<"

OAt 174S iit5li<"

OAC J 7 4 S S4 I i. A I

. IB^

ii. A, a t. DOAflMJ MilOAC1I41S4 MOACJM1 M -11OAC1MJ M »/ AOAC1J45 14 51 A fOAC ))<} S4 14. A()A( IMS 14 55OAC JW M J*. A !<•»

)«i< IMS SS I4<t)

OAt J74S SS tl, A bOAC 1141 M 91. A B. IOAC 174VSIM. A B.lOAC IMS 11 91. A OOAC 1741 11 M.A. B ( IOAC )MS 11 97. A B">

UAt IMS S7 I. A UU|

<M( 1741 S/ VI. A b «OAC J/4117 !»/*•>

TAHU: 25

A< i|*«< Htqulrtwtal i lniloi

GnxikdWua Piuvklct unhutily la tnvciliftic OKI' 1 I Ucondmax M my trie what riteHUUWM. Mun|e or itnp«ml a(iMOfdout wuie nay roM<Mc * Uuuilo fwbltc lc*kb <n uieiy. a daCCMUHDMMn Of Ih*

Crotml w*la inonumn| M«i h&uiiloui O A C ) J 4 ) S 4 'wulchaixy . OAC JJ4S M 97 A-II"

OAC 1J45 S4 91. A IOAC 174S S4 99. A IOAC1M5 SS II. A ( < « >

PoM-cltMure CMC md UK «4 (Mcpcny DAC' i ;« V Ml 7. I

i»Uftup*nd t>A(" J US 9 05. Al I) h•••wtb OAC 1/41906. A. B. l> t

OAC J J4S 9«7. A H-OAC1I4S90I. ACOAC JMS909 . A ( .1 >.

atUA tutuMtdawnd OAr J Mi (MO. A I

II of 1 I

SUMMARY FORPOWKLL ROAD LAHDFILLMOBTGOMBRY COUNTIHUBER HEIGHTS, OHIO

PURPOSE

The Responsiveness Summary serves two vital functions; 1) itprovides the U.S. EPA and Ohio BPA with information about theviews of the public, government agencies, and potentiallyresponsible parties (PRPs) regarding the proposed remedial actionand other alternatives; and 2) it documents how comments havebeen considered during the decision-making process and providesanswers to all significant comments.

Comments received during the public comment period identifiedmajor issues and concerns of the public, including the localcommunity living in the immediate vicinity of the Powell RoadLandfill Superfund Site (PRL). Community comments compriseSection I below. Concerns of the Potentially Responsible Parties(PRPs) are identified in Section II below. All comments aregrouped by topic, followed by general comments, if applicable.

I. COMMUNITY CONCERNS

NEEDMORE ROAD PLUME

COMMENT:I understand this study did not prove a definite link between theNeedmore Road plume and Powell Road Landfill (PRL). However, Iwould seek a commitment to continue to look (for the link). Aspecific addition should be made to the alternative to continueto search for linkages between Needmore Road plume and PowellRoad Landfill contamination.

COMMENT:We're concerned because even though you didn't find a linkbetween the Needmore Road plume and the landfill, it does notmean that the link is not there. There's a small chance that itis. And you're taking a small chance with our future watersupply. I don't think you're doing your job, because I think youbetter find out where those contaminants in the Needmore Roadplume are coming from and not just say it could be anywhere, andwe don't know, and move on.

COMMENT:Does the clean-up remedy for Powell Road Landfill include theNeedmore Plume? If not, will the clean-up remedy result indetermining the origin of this plume?

RESPONSE:The source of ground water contamination in the Needmore Roadarea has been investigated by the City of Dayton, Ohio EPA, andU.S. EPA. VOCs were identified in ground water 4,000 feet southof the landfill (Needmore Road area) . The VOCs identified in theNeedmore Road area consisted mainly of "ethene" VOCs. During theRI, a search was made to find the possible connection between PRLand ground water contamination in the Needmore Road area. Newmonitoring wells were installed in late 1990 and their locationswere specifically planned to intercept any possible connectionbetween PRL and the ground water contamination in the NeedmoreRoad area. However, the sampling results of these wells did notreveal a connection. If PRL were the source of ground watercontamination found in the Needmore Road area, ground watercontaminants would have been found between PRL and the NeedmoreRoad area. Additionally, dispersion of contaminants caused bymigration from PRL to the Needmore Road area would occur, anddowngradient contaminants in the Needmore Road area, would beequal-to, or more liJcely, less-than the ground watercontamination found at PRL. However, ground water contaminationwas not found between the Needmore Road area and PRL, nor werethe Needmore Road area ground water contamination levels equal-toor less-than contamination found at PRL. rhe "ethene" VOCcontaminants found in the Needmore Road area were found at levelsup to 4-times greater than "ethene" VOCs found in ground wateradjacent to the landfill.

Should a connection ultimately be established between PRL andNeedmore Road area, either a ROD amendment or Explanation ofSignificant Differences, as appropriate, will be prepared.

Based on the RI, we know where contamination related to PRL islocated and it is important to remediate both existingcontamination and the sources of that contamination to preventfurther migration of contamination away from PRL.

COMMENT:Based on the possibility that a mistake has been made and theNeedmore Road plume is shown to be connected to Powell RoadLandfill, wouldn't it be better to go with Alternative 7 now? Inother words would Alternative 7 better address the Needmore Roadplume than Alternative 5?

RESPONSE:None of the alternatives presented in the Proposed Planspecifically address ground water contamination in the NeedmoreRoad area. However, based on the limited information availableto the Agencies regarding the ground water contamination in theNeedmore Road area, the Agencies believe that Alternative 7 wouldnot better address the ground water contamination in the NeedmoreRoad area. Alternative 7 includes all the elements ofAlternative 4, the selected remedial action, but Alternative 7

also includes extraction of ground water from the primary aquiferadjacent to the landfill and extraction of ground water from theprimary aquifer south of the river, in the Eldorado Plat area.The ground water components in Alternative 7 actively remediatesground water contamination identified in the shallow and primaryaquifers adjacent to the landfill and the primary aquifer southof the river (Eldorado Plat area). None of these ground waterelements, nor any element included in any of the sevenalternatives, will address ground water contamination in theNeedmore .Road area.

COMMENT:The combination of significant vertical flow potential belowPowell Road Landfill and much higher levels of contamination atthe bottom of the landfill, suggest that in the RI some possibleconnection between Powell Road Landfill and Needmore Road Plume,may have been missed, and that the landfill may be the source ofNeedmore Road Plume.

1) Data from the Remedial Investigation (RI) Reportindirectly suggest that Powell Road Landfill is capable ofgenerating a much larger contaminant plume than is suggestedin the RI. Data from the RI Appendix show there is astronger downward vertical flow gradient than horizontalflow gradient below the unconfined portions of the landfill.If Powell Road Landfill is capable of generating a largercontaminant plume than is suggested in the RI, andgroundwater below the landfill is flowing downward at a verysteep gradient, there may be a zone of contaminant transportbetween Needmore Road Plume and Powell Road Landfill thathas not yet been detected.

2) The Remedial Investigation Report (RI) for Powell RoadLandfill contains two highly questionable approaches topredicting the concentration of contaminants at the base ofPowell Road Landfill: 1) averaging vent VOC levels from thelandfill (7,050 ug/1) and, 2) using mass balance equationsto back-calculate contaminant concentrations at the base ofthe landfill assuming that contaminant levels in MW04Brepresent the highest attainable levels of contaminants inthe RI (p.5-12), (5,477 ug/1). Using these calculations theRemedial Investigation Report determines there is littleserious health hazard from Powell Road Landfill except inthe immediate vicinity of the landfill, by using the valueof 5,477 ug/1 for the probable VOC concentration at the baseof the landfill. The RI calculates that leachate fromPowell Road Landfill is diluted to an undetectable level bythe time it reaches the Needmore Road Contaminant Plume.Using all of the same calculations from the RI, butsubstituting in a more environmentally realistic value forVOC levels at the base of Powell Road Landfill of 547,700ug/1, it appears that contaminant levels downflow from the

landfill may present a significant health threat. By usingthis value for VOC levels at the base of the landfill, theconcentration of 2992 ug/1, seems a more realistic value forVOC concentration that can be expected in the principalaquifer near Powell Road Landfill.

RESPONSE:Although RI data suggests that PRL is capable of generating amuch larger contaminant plume than was identified at theconclusion of the RI, the RI data identifies the extent andmagnitude of ground water contamination that has beenconclusively linked to PRL. The suggestions that a largercontaminant plume can be caused by the landfill associated withPRL and that a strong downward vertical flow gradient of groundwater exists, do not alone support the theory that there is anactual zone of contaminant transport between PRL and the NeedmoreRoad area. The RI investigated this potential zone ofcontaminant transport between PRL and the ground watercontamination found in the Needmore Road area. However, thesampling results of the study did not confirm the existence of azone of contaminant transport between PRL and the Needmore Roadarea.

The calculations used to predict the concentration ofcontaminants at the base of landfill associated with PRL werereviewed and approved by the Agencies in February, 1992. It isnot true that these calculations determined that there is littleserious health hazards from PRL. The risk calculations done inthe RI used data collected from the ground water, air, soils,surface water and sediment, including leachate, and numerousrisks to human health were identified. These risks are whatdrive the remedial action selected in the Record of Decision.

The RI calculations were conducted to identify if the levels ofground water contamination found in the Needmore Road area couldbe attributable to PRL. These calculations showed that theleachate from PRL is diluted to undetectable levels in thevicinity of Needmore Road. Additionally, the lack of groundwater contamination between PRL and the Needmore Road area is aneven stronger indication that the two areas are unrelated.Although the commenter suggests alternate ways of performingleachate calculations to support the theory of a connectionbetween PRL and the Needmore Road area, the commenter does notprovide any support for why the calculations are morescientifically defensible. Although the commenter does not feelthe calculations were done appropriately, the Agencies realizethat the leachate is one of the primary sources of contaminationand risks in ground water, in addition to the landfill associatedwith PRL, and the selected remedy addresses both the landfill, bycontainment, and the leachate, by extracting and treatingleachate. During the remedial action, the actual concentrationof leachate in the landfill will be determined when leachate

extraction wells are installed in the landfill and leachate ispumped out.

The Agencies have included a provision in the Record of Decisionthat if the connection between PRL and the ground watercontamination in the Needmore Road area is ever found, a RODamendment or Explanation of Significant Differences will beprepared, as appropriate.

MIAMI NORTH WELL FIELD

COMMENT:The proposed plan does not address the potential impact of thenew Dayton well field located on Rip Rap Island, either on theeffectiveness of the remedy, or migration of the contaminantsfrom the landfill. Specifically, we'd like to see a mechanism toresolve responsibility for compensating for any impacts theDayton well field may have on the remedy selected for thelandfill.

COMMENT:We are concerned about the proposed Dayton well field beside thelandfill. The proposed well field is not specifically addressedin the remedy selection. This is a serious shortcoming. Theremedy selection needs to be based on realistic future usescenarios.

COMMENT:The proposed well field is mentioned only briefly in the report(Section 1.2.2 page 1-4) and was not considered in the riskassessment as a potential receptor of affected groundwater. Thepotential for contaminant migration into the planned well fieldarea during long-term operation of the field should be consideredin the risk assessment, and any implications to the sevenremedial alternatives should be considered.

RESPONSE:Ohio EPA's decision to approve installation of Phase I of theCity of Dayton's new Miami North well field (located on Rip RapIsland) was based on numerous studies by the City from which aground water model was developed. This model indicated thatinitial pumping rates of approximately 5 million gallons per daywould not induce flow of contaminants from PRL. The City agreedto constrain pumping rates to these levels, until such time asremedial actions are underway at PRL. Further development of thewell field will be considered for approval by Ohio EPA contingentupon an evaluation of on-going ground water monitoring conductedby the City of Dayton, production capability information, andcontaminant movement information. Information generated by theselected remedial action is also expected to be reviewed. Also,Ohio Administrative Code 3745-9-04 restricts location of a well

where contaminants may be conducted into the well. The Record ofDecision provides that a ground water monitoring system that willbe established on PRL (around the landfill and south of the river(Eldorado Plat area)) to closely observe conditions between PRLand this area. One of the purposes of the ground watermonitoring system is to monitor for changes in ground water flowand potential migration of contaminated ground water from PRL tothe Miami North well field.

Mechanisms for resolving responsibility for any impacts the MiamiNorth well field may have on the selected remedial action restsolely with the person or persons performing the remedial actionand the City of Dayton. It is the Agencies' responsibility toensure that the remedial action (RA) remains protective of humanhealth and the environment over the duration of the RA. If atany time it is determined that the ROD is not protective of humanhealth and the environment, a ROD amendment or Explanation ofSignificant Differences will be prepared, as appropriate.

The potential for contaminant migration into the planned wellfield area during its long-term operation was not incorporatedinto the risk assessment because the risk assessment for PRL wascompleted as part of the Remedial Investigation report and deemedfinal in March, 1992. At the time the risk assessment wasperformed, the Miami North well field was only a proposal. As isusual for Superfund sites, U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment GuidanceFor Superfund (RAGS) was used to evaluate a number of scenarios.The scenarios were based on the remedial investigation data whichindicates ground water flow is generally from north to the southin the vicinity of PRL. Remedial investigations, by their verynature, are designed to be finite --a snap shot of theconditions at a site over a certain period of time. As statedabove, at the time the risk assessment was performed, the MiamiNorth well field was a proposal. As stated above, Ohio EPAapproved the Miami North well field based, in part, on the Cityof Dayton's modelling data that demonstrated that the well fieldwould have no effect on contaminant migration at planned pumpingrates. Information regarding any actual contaminant migrationwill be developed during and after the remedial action. Thisinformation will be considered before any further development ofthe well field will be approved. Conditions at any site willalways be changing and there comes a time when the partiesinvolved must decide that sufficient information has beengathered to select a remedy for a site. The Agencies feel it isessential to proceed with the selected remedial action at PRLbased on the information gathered to date, which includesawareness of the potential effects of the Miami North well fieldon the scope and performance of the remedial action.

COMMENT:The groundwater modeling frequently cited to indicate that thegroundwater will not flow from the landfill toward the Daytonwell field, Rip Rap Island, Miami north well field is a Geotransmodel that was completed in the mid-'80s. And Geotrans didn'thave the kind of data that we now have about the conditions onRip Rap Island; therefore, their model assumed recharge that wenow know won't occur, because there's a till layer thereextensively covering that area, and they also assumed there wouldbe recharge from the west. We now know that there's a bedrockhigh on the east and extensive till on the west; therefore, mostof the recharge will occur from the east, which is the area ofthe Powell Road Landfill. It doesn't seem logical to decide onthe Geotrans model and presuming that the Geotrans modelaccurately describes the current conditions.

More recently CH2M Hill has modeled the effect of one well on thenorthwest side of Rip Rap Island, which is the first well theyproposed to be put in. Their model suggested that there only bea one-foot high groundwater divide between Powell Road Landfilland that one well, when that one well is operated. We have topresume that if there are any more wells operating it will drawwater in from the area of Powell Road Landfill; therefore, wethink it's extremely important that the Powell Road Landfillremedial design incorporate the probability that groundwater willbe begin to flow toward the City of Dayton's well field.

RESPONSE:A number of precautions are in place to ensure that even ifground water begins to flow from PRL toward the Miami North wellfield, the selected remedial action for PRL will not becompromised and contaminants from PRL will not migrate into thewell field. As noted above, in addition to the modelling donefor the RI, the City of Dayton also did extensive modeling anddetermined that the initial phase of development at the MiamiNorth Well Field would not impact PRL. Further development willbe delayed until the remedy is in place at PRL (i.e.,contaminants are being captured). Ohio EPA stated in theirapproval letter for Phase I development that approval for furtherdevelopment of the well field would be based on a review ofongoing monitoring results, production capability information,and contaminant movement information. Also, Ohio AdministrativeCode 3745-9-04 restricts location of a well where contaminantsmay be conducted into the well. The details of the City ofDayton's well field proposal and the Ohio EPA approval letter areavailable for review in the Administrative Record for PRL.

COMMENT:Dayton is installing a new well field, projected to produce 20+million gallons per day, due west of Powell Road Landfill, on RipRap Island. Most of the well field is located in a zone thatappears to contain a continuous till aquitard. If the till zone

west of Powell Road Landfill is as continuous as the till to thesouth of Powell Road Landfill, then the well field is beinglocated in a zone of confined aquifer, and the cone of influencefrom Powell Road Landfill will likely extend to below Powell RoadLandfill, especially to the south of Powell Road Landfill, wherethe till is continuous. This is the zone in the deep aquiferthat is projected in the Feasibility Study, to be pumped fordecontamination. Given the steep downward gradient, the presenceof a confining till layer, and the presence of a large well fieldjust west of the landfill, an alternative groundwater collectiondesign might be considered for the landfill. Collection ofcontaminated groundwater from directly below the landfill seems abetter way to design the system, since changes in regionalgroundwater flow would not affect the system very much. Costs toinstall a horizontal drain system would be comparable to costs toinstall the deep well collection system being proposed. However,pumping rates for a series of vertical wells located south of thelandfill would have to be very high to keep the Dayton North WellField from changing the regional flow system. It seems thatpumping rates for a horizontal collection system installed belowthe landfill would be much lower.

COMMENT:In your alternatives, you didn't consider directionally drillingwells below the landfill, instead of having a line of wells southof the landfill. If you had directionally drilled wells placedunder the landfill you could more easily create a cone ofdepression that would reach across the entire landfill. Thereare companies that specialize in the installation of those now.And if you're aren't going to use directionally drilled wells, itseems logical that you would have leachate collection wells onthe west side of the landfill for the eventual time when the newDayton north well field begins to change the direction flow andbegins to move contaminants to the west.

RESPONSE:Me appreciate your input on this issue. Horizontal collectionsystems, which consist of horizontal or directionally-drilledwells, are the "wave of the future" for ground water extraction.Currently, the costs of horizontal ground water extraction wellsare high; however, they are being utilized more and moreextensively at hazardous waste sites, and the costs appear to bedecreasing. When the technologies available for remediation ofPRL were first being developed in 1990-1991, this horizontalcollection system technology was not included because it was nota proven technology as are the traditional vertical extractionwell systems. Additionally, the ground water flow informationfor PRL showed that ground water flowed north to south.

However, despite the changes in technologies and the location ofthe new well field, the Agencies are confident that theprecautions to monitor ground water during the selected remedial

8

action will address the potential for migration away from thePRL. As identified aJbove, the remedial action will closelymonitor ground water flow and potential ground water contaminantmigration towards the new well field. Additionally, Ohio SPA hasapproved installation of Phase I of the new Miami Worth wellfield, .based on ground water modelling developed by the City ofDayton. Further development of the well field will be consideredfor approval by Ohio EPA contingent on an evaluation of ongoingground water monitoring results, production capabilityinformation, and contaminant movement.

Therefore, the Agencies are confident that extraction of groundwater using vertical extraction wells during the remedial actionwill extract contaminated ground water at a sufficient level andwill not be compromised by the new well field. It is theAgencies' responsibility to ensure that the remedial action (RA)remains protective of human health and the environment over theduration of the RA. If at any time it is determined that the RODis not protective of human health and the environment, a RODamendment or Explanation of Significant Differences will beprepared, as appropriate.

LOCAL WELL FIELDS

COMMENT:Have there ever been, today or at any period of time in the last20 years, any contaminants in the City of Huber Height's watersystem (Ohio Suburban Water Company) that are directlyattributable to the Powell Road Landfill? If so what would bethe health risk?

COMMENT:What will be the impact of the new City of Dayton Miami NorthWell Field and the new Ohio Suburban (Huber Heights) well fieldon the effectiveness of the remedy at Powell Road Landfill? Willit change the direction of ground water flow?

COMMENT:Ohio Suburban Water Company owns and operates 2 well fields;Needmore well field and Rip Rap Road well field. Each well fieldis currently producing approximately 2 million gallons per day onan average annual basis. The Needmore Road well field has beenpumped at a rate of 6.5 million gallons per day during peakdrought conditions. Special air stripping equipment wasinstalled and rated at this capacity. The Rip Rap Road watertreatment plant currently has a rated capacity of 2.0 milliongallons per day. Future planned expansions at Rip Rap Roadrequire a capacity of 6 to 8 million gallons per day.

Consequently, we feel these capacities are necessary to serve thefuture growth of their customers. Any reduction of this capacity

could result in the company having to seek other sources of waterat a significant cost to our customers.

In preparing the final design for the remediation of Powell Roadlandfill contamination, special consideration should be given toany affects it might have on current and future pumpage from OhioSuburban's Needmore Road and Rip Rap Road well fields.

COMMENT:Significant use of water resources near the landfill couldinfluence groundwater flow direction and the distribution ofcontaminants.

RESPONSE:Contaminants were found in Ohio Suburban Water Company's (OSWC)Needmore Road production wells in 1984. These contaminants arebelieved to be from the ground water contamination in theNeedmore Road area. Air strippers were installed at the wellfield to remove these contaminants from the ground water. Asstated above, no connection has been found between PRL and theground water contamination in the Needmore Road area.

The OSWC conducted a study for their new Rip Rap Road well field.This study indicates that the capture zone of the new well fielddoes not reach the PRL Site and will not change the direction ofground water flow at PRL. This document is available for reviewin the Administrative Record.

MONITORING

COMMENT:The feasibility study and the proposed plan did not address long-term monitoring after the cleanup objectives have been met andthe groundwater and leachate extraction systems are shutdown.What is to prevent additional leachate from being generated bythe infiltration of the surface water or ground water and whatmonitoring will be done to detect such future releases? Theproposed plan (remedial action) should address the long-termmonitoring that will be implemented to ensure that any futurerelease which may occur following system shut-down are promptlydetected. The plan should also contain provisions to reactivatethe systems should a future release threaten human heath or theenvironment.

RESPONSE:You are correct; the FS does not address directly address long-term monitoring. The purpose of the FS is to developalternatives which will address contamination and reduce risksposed by PRL. The Proposed Plan identified the Agencies'proposed remedial action to address contamination and reducerisks posed by PRL. Alternatives 3 through 7 of the Proposed

10

Plan contained the common component of ground water monitoring.The Record of Decision identifies the Agencies' selected remedialaction to address contamination and reduce risks posed by PRL.The selected remedial action identified and detailed in theRecord of Decision, contains one component, common toAlternatives 3 through 7, identified as ground water monitoring.The purpose of this component, ground water monitoring, is to 1)evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment/containmentcomponents of the remedy to reduce risks in ground water; and, 2)monitor for changes in ground water flow and potential migrationof contaminated ground water from PRL. This component generallyaddresses ground water monitoring which will occur during theremedial action, during active ground water and leachateextraction and treatment. Details of the ground water monitoringcomponent, including long-term ground water monitoring, will bedeveloped during the remedial design of the selected remedy, andwill include a plan which identifies the conditions under whichground water/leachate extraction and treatment systems will bereactivated. Additionally, the National Contingency Plan (NCP)addresses long-term monitoring. The NCP 40 CFR Part 300 SubpartE §300.430 (f) (4) (ii), states: "If a remedial action is selectedthat results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited useand unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review suchaction no less often than every five years after initiation ofthe selected remedial action." Therefore, since the selectedremedial action at PRL will not directly address the landfillassociated with PRL, but will contain the landfill with thelandfill cap, the NCP requires the U.S. EPA to evaluate theconditions at PRL every five years, at a minimum, to determinethat the remedial action is protective of human health and theenvironment.

COMMENT:There's no discussion in the Feasibility Study of additionalmonitoring wells that will be put around the landfill. And whenquestions were asked about that, there was a discussion thatsuggested that EPA thinks that the current monitoring wellnetwork may be adequate. In fact, you'd need to establish anumber of wells in lines radiating out from the landfill to havean early warning system, to know if the groundwater slopechanges.

In the feasibility study, you've presumed that 17 leachate wellsput into the landfill will adequately de-water the landfill. Themonitoring well configuration doesn't include any sort ofmonitoring well system to assure us that this leachate collectiondesign system or leachate collection system will work asdesigned. So we hope that you do incorporate additionalmonitoring wells, many additional monitoring wells to establishthat your leachate removal system is functioning as designed.

11

COMMENT:Monitoring wells should be north of the landfill in case groundwater flow direction changes as a result of the new well fields'pumping.

COMMENT:Why is this proposed plan so general? Where are the specifics?

RESPONSE:You are correct; there is no discussion in the F5 regarding thespecific details of the ground water monitoring system aroundPRL. The purpose of the FS was to identify and screentechnologies to address contaminated media and developalternatives to address PRL as a whole. Specifics about groundwater monitoring to be utilized during the remedial action willbe detailed in the remedial design (design phase).

The exact number of wells needed to adequately monitor groundwater fluctuations at PRL will be determined in the design phase.Some of the current monitoring wells may need to be relocatedbased on improvements made to the cap. In other areas, it may bedetermined that new monitoring wells, in addition to the currentsystem, are needed for adequate monitoring. It is also importantto note that the City of Dayton has a large number of monitoringwells located in the area of PRL and the Miami North well field.Both the City and the Agencies have exchanged data gathered fromthe area of PRL and will continue to do so. The Agencies believethat information from both the early warning system at the MiamiNorth well field and the ground water monitoring system aroundPRL will provide sufficient information to determine any gradientfluctuations as well as any contaminant migration that may occur.

The feasibility study does not presume, but estimates that 17leachate extraction wells will be utilized to extract leachatefrom the landfill. As stated previously, the Proposed Plan ismeant to be a general plan for the remediation of PRL. Exactdetails, such as the exact number of leachate extraction wells,their placement, and their installation depth will be determinedduring the remedial design phase. The final number of wells tobe installed will ensure that a slight flow of ground water intothe landfill exists. As identified above, the monitoring systemwill be designed to evaluate the effectiveness of thetreatment/containment components of the remedy to reduce risks inground water, and to monitor for changes in ground water flow andpotential migration of contaminated ground water from PRL.

HYDRAULIC BARRIERS

COMMENT:Containment of leachate below the landfill or prevention ofinfiltrating groundwater using a passive, low permeabilitybarrier was not presented as a feasible remedial option in any of

12

the seven alternatives. This was reportedly due to theimpractical depth to low-permeability materials below much of thelandfill area. Vertical barriers are typically keyed into low-permeability materials to complete the containment.

However, the Hydrogeology section of the report documents thatthe low-permeability till underlies about 25 percent of thelandfill, generally beneath most of the southern area. This areais located hydraulically downgradient of the landfill, thedirection of shallow groundwater movement. The till is locatedat depths of about 25 to 40 feet beneath this area, which arefeasible depths for constructing a vertical barrier.

The efficiency and cost/benefit of constructing a passive, lowpermeability barrier along portions of the landfill should beevaluated. Consideration should focus on the southern,downgradient portion of the landfill to restrict off-siteleachate migration, and along the upgradient side to divertground water flow around the landfill area. The placement of abarrier upgradient may be effective at reducing the flow ofground water beneath the site, and thus the volume of groundwater to pump and treat, even though there is no till layer tokey into. Innovative technologies for in-situ solidification ofwaste at the landfill base (horizontal barrier) should also beconsidered. If effective, these barriers could significantlyreduce the long term risk of leachate migration, especially inthe absence of indefinite maintenance of the leachate extractionand treatment systems.

COMMENT:The feasibility study does not seriously evaluate the use ofhydraulic barriers to control the flow of groundwater andleachate from the site. Such barriers may reduce the flow ofgroundwater beneath the site, thus reduce the quantity ofgroundwater to pump and treat, decrease the amount of leachatethat may be generated from the landfill, and also reduce theimpact of the new Dayton well field on the proposed remedy.

COMMENT:The Feasibility Study documents a shallow unconfined aquiferdirectly underlying the landfill, and groundwater may rise intothe landfill during periods of seasonal high water levels. Thishydrologic scenario suggests that generation and migration ofleachate, potentially containing hazardous constituents, couldcontinue for an indefinite period. Consequently, long termprotection of groundwater quality relies on indefinite monitoringand maintenance of the leachate extraction and treatment systems.The feasibility study should consider construction of a passive(no-maintenance) barrier (horizontal or vertical) to reduce therisk of leachate migration.

13

RESPONSE:Both vertical and horizontal barriers, and hydraulic controlswere identified as containment remedial technologies for theground water/landfill leachate media in the Identification andScreening of Technologies section of the FS. During thisscreening, technologies were evaluated on the basis of technicaleffectiveness and implementability. Table 2.12 of the FSpresents the results of the screening of these technologies.Vertical and horizontal barriers were screened out during thisevaluation due to implementability issues which are related tothe geology of the area.

There are many types of vertical barriers which may be viable atlandfill sites, including upgradient barriers, downgradientbarriers and barriers which completely encircle the landfill.Vertical barriers are generally set into a shallow confininglayer.

An upgradient barrier is not implementable at PRL because aconfining layer is not present on the upgradient, or north, sideof the landfill.

A downgradient barrier, which may restrict the migration ofcontaminated ground water away from the landfill, iaimplementable but the technical effectiveness ia limited. In thearea of PRL, the shallow aquifer ia separated from the primaryaquifer only under approximately 25* of the landfill. If avertical barrier is constructed in the shallow aquifer, on thesouth side of the landfill, and set into the confining layer,ground water contamination may flow around the barrier or groundwater contamination may simply move downward, into the primaryaquifer. Since there la very little contamination in the primaryaquifer now, and the extent of ground water contamination in theshallow aquifer is limited, the Agencies do not want to create abigger problem than already exists. Ground water extractionveils are often used with vertical barriers to create an inwardground water gradient, however, due to the prolific nature of theGreat Miami River burled valley aquifer (GMR BVA) under PRL, aninward ground water gradient would be difficult, if notimpossible, to achieve and control. Such a system may alsocompromise the leachate extraction system by drawing leachateaway from the landfill and possibly creating a bigger problemthan currently exists.

A vertical barrier which encircles a landfill requires thepresence of a shallow, horizontal confining layer, into which thevertical barrier is set, to prevent downward migration ofcontamination. The combination of the vertical barrierencircling a landfill and a horizontal barrier creates a "bath-tub" effect to contain contaminants. At PRL, a continuousconfining layer is not present under the entire landfill andtherefore a vertical barrier is not implementable.

14

POWELL ROAD LANDFILL PROPERTY

COMMENT:Will Powell Road Landfill property ever be used for otherpurposes? Are we writing off this piece of real estate forfuture generations?

COMMENT:How long will it be, after the cleanup, before the land can bedeveloped?

COMMENT:Will the land be sold at public auction?

RESPONSE:The decision regarding sale of the property after the site iscleaned-up will be made by the property owners. Decisionsregarding development of the property will be made by the owner(or future owner (s)) of the property. The institutional controlscomponent of the selected remedial action may restrict certaindevelopment of the property.

Because the selected remedial action will leave the landfilledwastes in place, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires theU.S. EPA to evaluate the conditions of PRL every five years, at aminimum, to determine that the remedial action is protective ofhuman health and the environment.

GENERAL COMMENTS

COMMENT:There is a significant inconsistency between the FeasibilityStudy and the Proposed Plan regarding the quantity of leachatethat will be recovered by the leachate extraction system (2,200gallons per day versus 50,000 gallons per day). How will thisdiscrepancy be resolved to ensure that the leachate extractionsystem is designed to capture all of the leachate?

RESPONSE:The Agencies disagree that there is a discrepancy between the FSand the Proposed Plan regarding the quantity of leachate thatwill be extracted from the landfill. The Proposed Plan does notidentify an amount of leachate that will be extracted from thelandfill and treated. The Proposed Plan does state on page 8 ofthe Proposed Plan that 'Leachate will be extracted from thelandfill at a rate sufficient to create a slight influx of groundwater into the landfill to prevent migration of leachate out ofthe landfill". The quantity of leachate to be extracted from thelandfill will be determined during the remedial design andremedial action.

15

The Agencies did identify that estimated amounts of leachate tobe extracted from the landfill were different in the two draftFeasibility Study reports submitted to the Agencies in August,1992 and December, 1992. Rather than delaying the finalizationof the December, 1992 FS, the Agencies decided to finalize the FSwith a comment letter, dated March 2, 1993, which became aninsert to December 1992 FS report. In this comment letter, theAgencies identified the inconsistencies in the quantities ofleachate and stated that, whatever the amounts are finallydetermined to be, "... the burden of designing a system capableof handling the amounts calculated rests with the [person orpersons performing the RD/RA]."

COMMENT:I am concerned with the Proposed Plan and the study thathappened. Even though it was done under the care and supervisionof EPA, Waste Management hired or subcontracted the work that wasdone for the study, and when I see that the EPA trusts WasteManagement, I cannot trust the EPA.

RESPONSE:Initially the Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site was a"Superfund-lead" site meaning that U.S. SPA and Ohio EPA (theAgencies) were performing the work at the site using money fromthe Superfund. The Agencies developed a statement of work andhad begun to develop the work plan when SCA Services of Ohio,(SCA) a subsidiary of Waste Management of North America, Inc.,indicated that they were willing to undertake the study, whichturned PRL into a "PRP-lead" site. This means the PRP pays forand performs the investigation. SCA proceeded with the studybased on the Statement of Work developed by the Agencies.Therefore, the Agencies had a large amount of input into theinitial design of the study. Also, at the time that SCA tookover the project, the company entered into a Consent Order withthe Agencies. A Consent Order is a legally binding documentidentifying what work is to be done, how it is to be done, andwhat penalties shall be incurred if the conditions of the ConsentOrder are not met. Throughout the RI and FS process,representatives of both Agencies provided oversight, includingreviewing and commenting on documents and splitting environmentalsamples to verify the PRP's sampling results. Also, the MiamiValley Landfill Coalition (MVLC), a local citizen's group whoobtained a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) from U.S. EPA,provided input to the Agencies by reviewing numerous documents.All of this oversight, review of and comment on documents, andreview of and comment on data prepared by PRPs, is to ensure thatthe work is performed properly, regardless of who is doing it.

COMMENT:I know you've studied it (PRL) to death, but are you really goingto clean it up? I think you're going to cap it off, take water(monitor) every once in a while and try to contain it.

16

RESPONSE:The selected remedial action for PRL includes much more thancapping and monitoring. The landfilled wastes will remain inplace, and a land/ill cap with a liner will be constructed on theland/ill. The cap will do much more than simply cover thelandfill. The cap will also prevent rainfall from filteringthrough the landfill and carrying contaminants into the groundwater. In addition to an improved landfill cap with liner and aground water monitoring system, the remedial action includesremoving and treating gas from the landfill, landfill liquids(leachate), and ground water. Some of the components of theselected remedy will contain contaminants at PRL, and will reducethe mobility of contaminants. All components of the selectedremedy, including treatment of ground water, leachate, andlandfill gases, will reduce risks posed to the public and beprotective of the environment.

COMMENT:My mother (who lives near the landfill) says there arecontaminants in her well right now. There's bacteria that hasbeen continually coming into the wells, the new well that she hadto pay to drill, and she doesn't know where it's coming from.They can't find out where it's coming from. The neighbor has thesame problem. And she lives right next to the landfill.

RESPONSE:The Agencies investigation of this issue determined that thisparticular residential well is located to the east of PRL. Basedon results from several sampling events Cwhich include waterlevel measurements to determine the flow direction of groundwaterj, there has been no indication that contaminants from PRLare migrating to the east. Also, there has been no indicationthat bacterial contamination in wells has been linked to PRL.The presence of bacteria in wells can be attributed to a numberof things such as well construction defects, condition of thewell based upon age, the well location (for example, near theleach field for a septic system, or in limestone rock), etc.Anyone having a problem with excessive bacteria in their privatewell should contact their county health department (in this caseMontgomery County Health Department at 513-225-4395) for ways totreat this problem.

COMMENT:The feasibility study addresses only leachate generated by theinfiltration of surface water or appears to address only that.What about the leachate generated by the contact of the landfillwaste or the landfill material with rising groundwater levels?

RESPONSE:The leachate extraction system will address all liquids in thelandfill, whether the liquid is generated by infiltrating surfacewater or by contact with ground water.

17

COMMENT:Does the clean-up remedy include the near-by river?

RESPONSE:No, the clean-up remedy does not include the Great Miami River.The Remedial Investigation (RI) sampling of surface water andsediment of the Great Miami River (GMR) and adjacent intermittentstreams did not identify any impact from PRL in the form of VOC,semivolatile or inorganic contamination which are the types ofcontaminants associated with PRL.

Under current use conditions, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenicrisks were identified during the Risk Assessment for ingest ion offish caught from the backwater area of the Great Miami River.These risks were based on data from contaminated soils foundaround the landfill, and assumed that the contaminated soilscould migrate into the surface water. The selected remedy willreduce this risk by excavating and consolidating contaminatedsoils on top of the landfill and construction of the landfill capwith liner on the landfill.

COMMENT:Did ATSDR and the Ohio Department of Health respond to thecomments on their draft health assessment document for PowellRoad Landfill?

RESPONSE:Yes. Review of the final health assessment indicates thatcomments submitted on the draft health assessment areincorporated into the final document dated April 22, 1993.

COMMENT:How are you incorporating the Ohio Department of Health's HealthAssessment, into your remedy selection?

RESPONSE:The U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA have reviewed the Health Assessmentwhich presents seven recommendations. The first tworecommendations, "Adequate personal protective equipment shouldbe worn during site remediation to limit exposure to VOCs in on-site air.", and "Monitoring on-site ambient air duringremediation to insure the safety of on-site workers and nearbyresidents ...*, will be included in the Health and Safety Plan tobe prepared in the remedial design, and implemented during theremedial action. The third recommendation, "Expand the soil gassurvey to determine the extent of soil gas contamination. ", isnot included in the selected remedial action. The selectedremedial action will address soil/landfill gases by reducinglandfill gas migration by extracting gases from the landfill andtreating the gases with a flare assembly. The forthrecommendation is "Ground water monitoring should be done at areawater supplies (public and private) ...". Private well sampling

18

of select residential wells will be conducted as part of theground water monitoring component of the selected remedialaction. Public area water supply wells are not affected by PRLand will not be addressed in the remedial action. The fifthrecommendation, "Implement flood control methods to reduce theimpact of flooding of the Great Miami River on the base of thelandfill.', is incorporated into the selected remedial action.The sixth recommendation, "Regularly inspect the methane alarmsin the two homes north of the site.", is not incorporated intothe remedial action. The monitors present in these homes arewere not installed by either U.S. EPA or Ohio EPA, and the RODwill not address these monitors. The seventh recommendation,"When indicated by public health needs, and as resources permit,the evaluation of additional relevant health outcome data andcommunity health concerns, if available, is recommended.', is nota recommendation which can be incorporated into the selectedremedial action. However, these issues will be addressed ifnecessary during the remedial design/remedial action.

COMMENT:Is there a formal partnership between Ohio Suburban, Dayton WaterDepartment, OEPA, and the USEPA to promote communication with thepotential PRP'S?

RESPONSE:There is not a formal partnership or agreement, such as a ConsentOrder, between the above parties.

The U.S. EPA is promoting communication with the PRPs identifiedfor Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site. On May 21, 1993, U.S.EPA issued a General Notice Letter to approximately 40potentially responsible parties (PRPs). One purpose of theGeneral Notice Letter was to encourage all PRPs to meet andestablish a steering committee responsible for representing thegroup's interests. The first meeting of PRPa was held onWednesday, June 9, 1993- in Dayton, Ohio. The U.S. EPA and OhioEPA were present at this meeting.

COMMENT:Has Waste Management agreed to clean up the landfill? If not,what will happen to the clean-up process (i.e., will it bedelayed for a long time)?

RESPONSE:No, Waste Management has not agreed to clean-up PRL. InNovember, 1987, SCA Services of Ohio (SCA), a subsidiary of WasteManagement of North America, Inc., entered into a Consent Orderwith the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA to conduct the RemedialInvestigation and Feasibility Study of PRL.

Now that the technical terms of the RI/FS Consent Order arecomplete, U.S. EPA has initiated communication with SCA and other

19

PRPs to begin discussing the remedial design and remedial action(RD/RA) work to be done next at PRL. The U.S. EPA expects toactively pursue RD/RA discussions with PRPs once the ROD isfinal.

Typically at Superfund Sites, U.S. EPA sends out special noticeletters to PRPs which initiates the 60 day moratorium on remedialactivities at the Site, allowing time for PRPs to settle with theU.S. EPA. If at the end of 60 days, the PRPs do not settle withU.S. EPA, but present a good faith offer, the moratorium willtypically be extended another 60 days. If the moratorium endswithout a settlement being reached, the U.S. EPA has severaloptions including; issue a Unilateral Administrative Order toP&Ps instructing them to conduct the remedial design/remedialaction, or use the funding available under the *Superfund" tobegin the RD/RA process. Therefore, the Agencies will activelypursue RD/RA negotiations and yet will not delay the cleanupprocess of the PRL, if those negotiations fail.

COMMENT:Will individuals, who have lived in fear for several years nearPowell Road Landfill be compensated?

RESPONSE:Any form of compensation to individuals affected by PRL will notbe addressed by the selected remedial action or the remedialdesign/remedial action process. Any persons seeking compensationfor harm related to PRL should seek the advice of a privateattorney.

COMMENT:The groundwater is designated as a federal sole-source aquiferand is protected by the City of Dayton's Well Field Protectionprogram. Is the remedy selection adequate to protect thisresource for future generations?

RESPONSE:Yes, the selected remedy will protect the ground water of theGreat Miami River buried valley aquifer (sole-source aquifer;.Protection of the sole-source aquifer has been a majorconsideration behind the extensive investigation in the area ofPRL and the Agencies efforts to get the most protective remedypossible under the law.

The selected remedy includes a landfill cap with liner,excavation and consolidation of contaminated soils under thelandfill cap, ground water monitoring, landfill gas collectionand treatment, leachate extraction and treatment, extraction or"ground water from the shallow aquifer and treatment, discharge oftreated ground water and leachate. The landfill cap will addressground water contamination by reducing infiltration ofprecipitation into the landfill thereby reducing generation of

20

leacnate and also reducing the percolation of leachate from thelandfill and ground water. Leachate and shallow ground waterextraction and treatment will address the remaining sources ofcontamination in the primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill andsouth of the river in the Eldorado Plat area. Once the landfillcap is constructed, the leachate and ground water extraction andtreatment systems are operational, ground water contamination inthe primary aquifer, both adjacent to the landfill and south ofthe river (Eldorado Plat area), is expected to decrease andcleanup levels (identified in the ROD) will be achieved in anestimated 6 years. Because this remedial action will result inhazardous substances remaining on-site, a review will beconducted within five years after commencement of the remedialaction to insure that the remedial action continues to provideadequate protection of human health and the environment.

COMMENT:The Feasibility Study for Powell Road Landfill presumes a verysmall vertical gradient below Powell Road Landfill. Given themagnitude of the vertical gradient in the vicinity of thelandfill, and the proximity to the Dayton North Well Field beingdeveloped on Rip Rap Island, the assumption used in the RI thatgroundwater flows predominantly horizontally, and will continueto flow from north to south in the vicinity of the landfill,needs careful scrutiny.

RESPONSE:The Agencies are aware that the proximity of the local wellfields to PRL could possibly affect the ground water flow in thearea. The selected remedial action includes a ground watermonitoring component to address this issue. The purpose of theground water monitoring component is twofold: 1) to evaluate theeffectiveness of the treatment/containment components of theremedy to reduce risks in ground water; and, 2) to monitor forchanges in ground water flow and potential migration ofcontaminated ground water from PRL.

COMMENT:I live 800 feet north-northeast of Powell Road Landfill, and I amconcerned about methane gas odors which are especially evidentduring the hot humid summer months of June, July, and August.There are many new homes being built in this area where youngchildren may be exposed to this methane gas. I think the methanegas problem needs to be addressed first.

21

RESPONSE:The selected remedy will address methane gases in the landfillthrough the design and construction of a landfill gas extractionand treatment system. The gas extraction wells installed in thelandfill will extract gases from the landfill. The landfillgases will be collected and treated on-site using a flareassembly. The schedule for the remedial activities will bedecided during the remedial design.

COMMENT:Will a transcript of the June 2, 1983 meeting be available?

RESPONSE:Yes, the transcript of the June 2, 1993 meeting is available forreview at the Administrative Record locations at the Dayton-Montgomery County Public Library and U.S. EPA offices in Chicago,Illinois.

COMMENT:Will the roads around the landfill support the heavy equipmentneeded for the land and water cleanup?

RESPONSE:During the design of the remedy, the condition and stability ofany roads needed for access by heavy equipment to the site willbe evaluated. If necessary, the roads will be improved to handleusage by heavy equipment.

COMMENT:Will there be more meetings in Huber Heights to explain theprocess?

RESPONSE:No additional public meetings are scheduled at this time. TheU.S. EPA will issue a press release and publish an advertisementin the local newspapers when the Record of Decision, whichdocuments the Agencies' selected remedy, is final. The Agenciesare planning to hold an Availability Session in the Huber Heightsarea in October, 1993 to discuss ground water issues related toresidential wells.

COMMENT:I do not understand why you do not have people/groups of thecommunity enter into the agreement (Consent Order).

RESPONSE:The Consent Order is an agreement between PRPs and governmentAgencies. People/citizens of a community are represented by OhioEPA and U.S. EPA. The community is also part of the RI/FSprocess through public meetings and the public comment period.

22

At the Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site, the Miami ValleyLandfill Coalition (MVLC), a local citizen's group, obtained aTechnical Assistance Grant from U.S. EPA, and has been directlyinvolved with the work done at PRL since 1989. MVLC has providedinput to the Agencies by reviewing and commenting on numerousdocuments during the RI and FS.

COMMENT:I am concerned that when the VOCs are stripped from the water [atthe OSWC Needmore Road well field] they are simply put into theair. Which is worse, breathing them Oi. drinking them?

RESPONSE:Volatile organic compounds are stripped from the ground water andemissions are released to the air. Air stripper emissions arereleased in a controlled and carefully monitored manner and aresubject to regulations as are all the treatment systems to beutilized in the selected remedial action.

COMMENT:When were the ground water sampling events and do they allsupport each other? Does the 1993 data indicate thatcontamination has moved considerably from the site since 1991?What is your percentage of error on that?

RESPONSE:Ground water sampling events during the RI occurred in December,1988, April, 1989 and February 1991. In March, 1993, theAgencies requested that the PRP sample select monitoring andresidential wells. Data from the 1993 sampling event indicatesthat ground water contamination levels remained at similar levelswhich were detected in 1988, 1989 and 1991, and contaminantdistribution has not changed since 1991.

COMMENT:How many Eldorado Plat residential wells have been tested and howoften?

RESPONSE:Residential wells were sampled in August, and September, 1984(one well), November, 1984 (nine wells), January, 1985 (forty-sixwells), December, 1988 (twenty-four wells), January, 1991 (twowells), and March, 1993 (five wells). Details of the results ofeach of these sampling rounds are identified in a letter datedAugust 23, 1993, which was sent to everyone on the communityrelations mailing list for PRL. This letter has been included inthe Administrative Record and is available for review at theAdministrative Record locations at the Dayton-Montgomery CountyPublic Library and U.S. EPA offices in Chicago, Illinois.

23

COMMENT:It was said that there was an excessive cancer risk caused byshowering in and drinking water from the monitoring wells inEldorado Plat. How is Alternative 5 addressing this cancer risk?

RESPONSE:The selected remedial action is Alternative 4. Alternative 4will reduce risks posed by showering in and drinking water frommonitoring wells in the Eldorado Plat area by extracting andtreating leachate in the landfill and ground water from theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill. Leachate and groundwater in the shallow aquifer are the sources of ground watercontamination found adjacent to the landfill and south of theriver in the Eldorado Plat area. Once these sources are removedand the landfill is capped, ground water contamination in theprimary aquifer adjacent to the landfill and in the Eldorado Platarea will reduce and achieve ground water cleanup levels in anestimated 6 years.

II. PRP COMMENTS

CLEANUP LEVELS (10"* to 10"6 RISK RANGE)

COMMENT:U.S. EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-30 "Role of the Baseline RiskAssessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions* clearlystates that if the cumulative carcinogenic site risk to anindividual based on reasonable maximum exposure for both currentand future land use is less than 1x10 ~4, and the non-carcinogenichazard index (HI) is less than 1, action at the site is generallynot warranted. In addition, the directive states "The upperboundary of the risk range is not a discrete line at IxlO"4,although EPA generally uses 1x10-4 in making risk managementdecisions. A specific risk estimate around 10"* may beconsidered acceptable if justified based on site-specificconditions." This directive also states* that the U.S. EPA shouldclearly justify the need for remedial action if baseline risksare within the acceptable risk range.

COMMENT:In addition, the NCP states "for known or suspected carcinogens,acceptable exposure levels are generally concentration levelsthat represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to anindividual of between 10-4 and 10-6 using information on therelationship between dose and response." (NCP, p. 8718).

The excess lifetime cancer risks did not exceed 1x10-4 for anyfuture use (on-site resident) pathway evaluated. The total(summed) excess cancer risk through all future use pathways wascalculated to be 1x10-4, due primarily to incidental ingestion ofon-site soil, inhalation of landfill emissions, and ingestion of

24

on-site groundwater (based on landfill liquid data). The HIvalue under future use conditions was slightly greater than 1 (3)for one future use pathway: ingestion of on-site groundwater.These exposure concentrations were calculated using landfillliquid data, allowing for hypothetical dilution into groundwater.The calculated HI value was exceeded for antimony. However,antimony has never been detected in groundwater.

Since risks calculated for the site indicate that risks fallwithin the acceptable risk range specified by the NCP, theadditional remedial action required in Alternative 5 is clearlynot warranted at PRL.

COMMENT:The Proposed Plan (p.3) states that "Acceptable risks are thosewhich may result in less than one additional cancer case in1,000,000 [10~6]." As noted above, the NCP defines acceptableexposure levels as a cancer risk between 10"4 and 10 "6.

RESPONSE:The above quote from U.S. EPA's OSWER Directive is accurate, Jbutthe selected quote ia not complete enough to give the fullcontext in which the statement was made. The first page of theDirective states "Where the cumulative carcinogenic site risJc toan individual Jbased on reasonable maximum exposure for bothcurrent and future land use is less than 10"*, and the non-carcinogenic hazard quotient is less than 1, action generally isnot warranted unless there are adverse environmental impacts.However, if MCLs or non-zero MCLGs are exceeded, action generallyis warranted." As identified in section VI. A. 3. of the ROD,three of the 19 chemicals of concern in on-site ground waterwells were detected at concentrations which exceed MCLs, and oneof the 5 chemicals of potential concern in the Eldorado Platmonitoring wells exceeded MCLa (see Table 18 in ROD). TheAgencies agree that Alternative 5 is not the .best alternative toaddress and reduce risks posed by PRL. Alternative 4 is theselected remedial action and will best reduce risks to humanhealth and the environment posed by PRL.

The above quote from the Proposed Plan is accurate, however, theProposed Plan did not clearly explain the definition ofacceptable risks. This issue is explained below and is clarifiedin the Record of Decision. The quote from the section NCP (page8718) is accurate; however the NCP goes one step further inSection 300.430 (e) (2) and identifies the 10'6 risk level as thepoint of departure for determining remediation goals foralternatives when ARARs are not available or are not sufficientlyprotective of human health because of the presence of multiplecontaminants at a site or multiple pathways of exposure. PRL hasboth multiple contaminants and multiple pathways of exposure.U.S. EPA believes it is necessary that when the aggregate risk ofcontaminants exceeds 10'4, or where remediation goals are not

25

determined by ARARs, U.S. EPA uses 10'6 as a point of departure.for establishing- remediation goals. This means that a cumulativerisJfc level of 10'6 is used as the starting point Cor initial"protectiveness" goal; for determining the most appropriate risklevel that alternatives should be designed to attain. The use of10'6 is U.S. EPA's preference for remedial actions that reducerisks to the more protective end of the risk range, but this doesnot mean that a final remedial action should attain such a risk-based cleanup level.

Additionally, under current use conditions the excess lifetimecancer risks were within a 10'6 to 10'4 cancer risk range for sixpathways and the excess lifetime cancer risks exceeded 10'* forone pathway. Under current use conditions, the hazard indexvalue was greater than one for one pathway. Under future land-use conditions, the excess lifetime cancer risks were within a10'6 to 10'4 cancer risk range for four pathways. The excesslifetime cancer risks exceeded 10'4 for one pathway. Underfuture land-use conditions, the hazard index value was greaterthan one for one pathway. The Agencies believe the riskscalculated for PRL do justify the need for remedial action ofground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.

At PRL, the Agencies have identified in the ROD that finalcleanup levels for individual contaminants in all media will bechemical-sped fie ARARS (see Table 22 in ROD). If multiplecontaminants are present in a media, and cleanup of individualcontaminants to ARARs result in an cumulative risk in excess of10'4 across a media, cleanup levels of contaminants will be risk-based and cumulative cross a media to 10'4 or less (see Table 21of ROD). If chemical-specific ARARs do not exist forcontaminants, cleanup levels of contaminants will be risk-basedand cumulative across a media to 10'4 or less (see Table 21 ofROD) .

TREATMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOILS PRIOR TO CONSOLIDATION

COMMENT:Under current use conditions, the excess lifetime cancer risksexceeded 1x10"* (2 x 10'3) and the HI was greater than 1 (6) foringestion of uncooked fish caught from the backwater area of theGreat Miami River. All other pathways (including soil ingestion)were within the acceptable risk range specified in the NCP. Itis highly unlikely under reasonable maximum current useconditions that an individual would need or desire to subsistentirely on fish, let alone uncooked fish, from the backwaterarea for 350 days per year. The unreasonable nature of thisassumption was noted by the Ohio EPA in the Public Meeting inHuber Heights on June 2, 1993. Risks associated with cooked fishfall within the acceptable risk range (5 x 10-5, HI<1). Inaddition, the data used for this evaluation was based on a

26

simulation of contaminant migration by surface water runoff.Actual concentrations of constituents contributing to risk werenot detected in the backwater area. This is clearly a case wherea risk level around 1x10-4 may be considered acceptable. Theconsolidation and capping of "hot spot" soil would fully addressconcerns for potential contaminant migration by runoff into thebackwater.

COMMENT:Contaminants in on-site soil (PCBa and DOT) are generallyimmobile. General characteristics of PCBs and DOT include lowsolubility, low vapor pressure, and high octanol-water andorganic carbon partition coefficients (EPA, 1990; Mackay et al.,1992) . These characteristics indicate that both PCBs and DDTtend to accumulate and persist in soil. Low solubility tends tolimit contaminant movement with water through soil. Low vaporpressure and high partition coefficients further indicate thatPCBs and DDT in soil will tend to remain fixed in soil ratherthan partition to other media such as water or air.

RESPONSE:The Agencies have reconsidered the necessity of treatingcontaminated soils prior to consolidation under the landfill cap.The Agencies have reviewed the information provided by thecommenter, and consulted with Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA RCRAprograms, and agree that treatment of contaminated soils prior toconsolidation under the landfill cap will not provide additionalprotection of human health and the environment, nor provide anysignificant reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume.Accordingly, the selected remedial action no longer includes thetreatment of contaminated soils prior to consolidation under thelandfill cap.

During the public meeting in Huber Heights, Ohio, on June 2,1993, the Ohio EPA did not imply that the risk calculations usedto identify risks based on fish consumption were unreasonable.Ohio EPA did explain during the meeting how these riskcalculations were conducted and the assumptions which are part ofthe calculation. The Agencies believe that the risk calculationsused to identify risks based on fish consumption were reasonablebecause contaminated soil was identified around the landfill anda complete pathway for migration of soils to the river exists.

RISK ASSESSMENT

COMMENT:The risks estimated in the Baseline Risk Assessment do notreflect a reasonable estimate of site risk. The Baseline RiskAssessment performed by Clement International Corporation wasprepared under U.S. EPA direction in accordance with Subpart E,Section 300.430(d) of the NCP. In general, the Baseline Risk

27

Assessment followed standard U.S EPA national risk assessmentmethodologies and conservative assumptions.

Clement International Corporation was required to adhere toRegion V policy for assessing future hypothetical exposures andrisks to residents living on the PRL property. This Region Vpolicy resulted in the use of maximum detected chemicalconcentrations on the site (for leachate, soil, and gas) as thebasis of calculating hypothetical upper bound exposures andrisks. The Region V policy has not been authorized by U.S. EPAHeadquarters, and, in fact, is inconsistent with current U.S. EPAnational Superfund risk assessment guidance, and U.S. EPA'sproposed exposure-related measurement and final exposureassessment guidelines.

In its "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, HumanHealth Evaluation Manual (EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989)," U.S.EPA states "... assuming long-term contact with the maximumconcentration is not responsible* (p. G19). Nonetheless, that isprecisely the effect of following the Region V policy which usesan implausible worst-case analysis as the only level of analysis.

The goal of risk assessment is to portray as accurately aspossible the potential health risk, including the attendantuncertainties, associated with a particular set of exposures.Its purpose is not to conduct worst-case analyses for the sake ofconservatism. As U.S. EPA cautioned in its 'Proposed Guidelinesfor Exposure-related Measurements" (53 Federal Register 48830,December 2, 1988):

By maximizing the parameters in a scenario for exposure, theassessor is looking at the top end of the distribution ofexposures in a population (if indeed the worst case actuallyexists in the population). A legitimate use of worst-casescenarios is to determine if the exposure or risk is lowenough even at this extreme so as to dismiss concern forthis scenario. It is not legitimate to use a worst-casescenario to prove that there in fact exists a concern in areal population. In constructing a worst-case scenario, theassessor has usually added assumptions or used particulardata points that bring into question whether the scenarioactually represents the real world. If the exposure or riskvalue estimated by a worst-case scenario is high enough tocause concern, the assessor must reevaluate the parametersused and perform reality checks before deciding a problemreally exists. It is critical that the results of a worst-case individual scenario are not immediately applied to anentire population, since in almost all cases this willresult in a substantial overestimate of a potential problem.(EPA, 1988a, p. 48846.)

28

Likewise, as U.S. EPA states in its recently published final"Guidelines for Exposure Assessment" (57 Federal Register 22888,May 29, 1992), regarding the true value of theoretical upperbounding estimates of exposure and risk:

... the only thing the bounding estimate can establish is alevel to eliminate pathways from further consideration. Itcannot be used to make a determination that a pathway issignificant (that can only be done after more information isobtained and a refinement of the estimate is made), and itcertainly cannot be used for an estimate of actual exposure(since by definition it is clearly outside the actualdistribution). (EPA, 1992a, p. 22920.)

Research conducted by Clement International Corporation hasdemonstrated that the standard U.S. EPA "reasonable maximumexposure" (RME) methodology for groundwater routinely andunpredictably overestimates the true 95th percentile upperconfidence limit of possible exposures and risks by 1 to 3 ordersof magnitude (i.e., by 10 to 1,000 times) (Clement, 1990a.). Ina significant number of cases, the U.S. EPA methodology gives RMEconcentrations that are physically impossible (i.e., greater than1 million parts per million).

Therefore, the risk estimates presented in the Baseline RiskAssessment, and prepared in accordance with U.S. EPAmethodologies and specifications as interpreted by Region V donot reflect the true or reasonable estimates of site risks, andthat actual site risks would be considerably lower. Therefore,the additional remedial action required in Alternative 5 (asopposed to Alternative 3) is clearly not warranted at PRL.

COMMENT:It is inappropriate to use maximum detected chemicalconcentrations as the basis for calculating hypotheticalexposures and risk. In addition, calculating risk on the basisof exposure to an individual residing on the landfill in thefuture is unreasonable and inappropriate. U.S. EPA guidelinespreclude the essential exposure scenario for a municipallandfill. See figure 2.4 of "Potential Conceptual Site Model forMunicipal Landfills," EPA OSWER Directive 7355.3-11 February1991. Moreover, residential exposure scenarios are irrelevant atsites which will have institutional controls, including deedrestrictions, prohibiting such future development.

RESPONSE:The Baseline Risk Assessment for PRL was prepared under thedirection of a U.S. EPA Region V toxicologist.

This comment states that the U.S. EPA's direction in thepreparation of the Risk Assessment resulted in an unreasonableestimate of site risk. The Agencies do not agree with this

29

determination. At the time the Risk Assessment was done for PRL,the RME scenario was evaluated as required by the Risk AssessmentGuidance for Superfund (RAGS). The central tendency scenario,which presents the average risk and is used for the purpose ofrisk communication, was not calculated. The central tendencycalculations were not required at that time; these calculationsdemonstrate the range of exposures which may be posed by thesite, but they are not essential in a Risk Assessment because RMEis used for remediation decisions. Remedial decisions cannot beexecuted at a level which leaves 50* of the population at risk.

RAGS was followed to establish acceptable default exposureparameter values for use in standardized intake equations. Thecomments address the exposure point concentrations used in theintake equations. Exposure point concentrations can represent awide range of values if homogeneous sampling data was notobtained or hot-spots are present. When the upper S5* confidencelimit is calculated, true detects are figured into thecalculation along with non-detects. Sometimes, the calculatedupper 95* confidence limit value exceeds the highest exposure.RAGS clearly states that when this happens, the maximum exposureconcentration should be used instead of the hypotheticallyexaggerated 95* confidence limit value. However, RI samplingdata may not have identified the highest concentrations ofcontamination on the Site, therefore the highest concentrationsof contamination detected may not be the highest values presentat the Site, and are not necessarily unreasonable.

Calculations were done in the Risk Assessment using the maximumconcentration of contaminants detected in ground water. Theaverage concentration of contaminants was not used, first,because U.S. EPA headquarters has not provided guidance tosupport this approach, and second, it is difficult to calculatewhat the average concentration of a ground water contaminant is.Factors such as localized, persistent pockets of ground watercontamination and sample data which may not accurately reflectthe highest concentrations present, make it difficult tocalculate an average contaminant value. Multiple monitoringwells are not usually installed to determine the plume/poolconcentrations of contaminants, but rather, monitoring wells arelocated to determine the boundaries of the contamination. U.S.EPA's Region V guidance uses 3-5 wells and averages the value ofeach contaminant detected in the wells if the values arerelatively homogeneous. Obviously, if the values are nothomogeneous any statistics generated will be skewed and willresult in the use of the highest detected value for riskcalculations. In cases where not much monitoring well data isavailable, Region 5 follows a policy which was developed by U.S.EPA - Region 3. The flegrion 3 policy evaluates specific areas ofcontamination and determines the risks involved with installing awell in these contaminated areas. This determination is based onan individual's potential exposure to the actual chemicals

30

present in the contaminated areas. This method was presented atU.S. EPA1s risk assessment conference a few years ago andrepresents a reasonable approach.

The PRPs identify that calculating risk based on an individualresiding on the landfill (future residential land use scenario)is unreasonable and inappropriate. The Agencies do not agree.Ground water contamination and landfill gases have the potentialto migrate to adjacent property. Property adjacent to landfillscan be sold to an individual who wishes to reside on theproperty. This individual may even install a well for potablewater. (There are residences around Powell Road Landfill.) Thepotential exists that an individual could be exposed to thevarious contaminants found at the Site.

The Agencies do not agree that residential scenarios areirrelevant at sites which will have institutional controls. Riskassessment is separate from and does not involve risk management(i.e. the determination to implement institutional controls). Arisk assessment examines the contamination found at a Site, andthe potential for human exposure to the contamination. Adetermination is made as to whether or not this exposure presentsa risk. The purpose of Risk Assessment is to present anunbiased, scientific evaluation of the Site and the risks itmight pose. Once the risks have been determined, one can decidehow to address the risks (risk management), for example if aninstitutional control can be used. The decision to utilizeinstitutional controls is not made first, followed bydetermination of the risks.

Figure 2.4 identified in this comment is from the U.S. EPAguidance "Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studiesfor CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites'. This guidance documentpresents procedures which can. be used to expedite risk managementdecisions at a site; however, it also specifies (Section 3.7, pp3-37 through 3-40) that a full (quantitative) risk assessment isnecessary to demonstrate that the full remedy is protective ofhuman health and the environment. U.S. EPA is still required toconduct a Risk Assessment, develop risk calculations, and thenmake risk management decisions and develop a remediation strategyfor the Site.

The Agencies do not agree that Alternative 3 would be protectiveof human health and the environment because Alternative 3 doesnot actively address existing ground water contamination in theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill. Ground water in thisaquifer exceeds MCLs, exhibits unacceptable risks to humanhealth, and warrants remediation under the selected remedialaction. The Agencies identify Alternative 4 as the selectedremedial action in the ROD. Alternative 4 differs fromAlternative 5 (the preferred alternative in the Proposed Plan) inthe ground water component. Specifically, Alternative 4 extracts

31

and treats ground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent to theSite, while Alternative 5 also extracted ground water from theprimary aquifer adjacent to the Site. By extracting leachatefrom the landfill and ground water from the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill, the Agencies believe the sources ofground water contamination in the primary aquifer adjacent to thelandfill and south of the river in the Eldorado Plat area will beaddressed. Contamination in the primary aquifer is expected todecrease and achieve cleanup levels in an estimated 6 years.

COMMENT:Ohio EPA Deputy Director, Jennifer Tiell, was quoted in theColumbus Dispatch on June 15, 1993, as saying: "U.S. EPA hastypically regulated from the worst-case scenario." "I think Ohioand a lot of states have been saying, 'We've got a lot of gooddata now. We shouldn't have to regulate [sic] from the worstcase.'"

RESPONSE:The opinions of the Ohio EPA's Acting Deputy Director have nodirect bearing on the determinations of risks at Superfund Sitesin general or the Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site, inparticular. The determinations of risks at PRL were madeproperly based on existing guidance (including the RiskAssessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) and regional policy),and in consultation with U.S. EPA Region V toxicologists. U.S.EPA and Ohio EPA have jointly selected Alternative 4 as theappropriate remedial action to address contamination and reducerisks at PRL.

GROUND WATER DEGRADATION

COMMENT:Alternative 3 complies with federal and state applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Implementation ofAlternative 5 may result in non-compliance with ARARS, byactually degrading groundwater quality in the primary aquifer andresulting in non-compliance with ARARs.

In addition, Alternative 5 may not comply with Ohio anti-degradation laws since the groundwater extraction system willcompromise the effectiveness of the leachate extraction systemand may subsequently degrade on-site aquifers.

COMMENT:Alternative 3 may achieve a higher degree of long-termeffectiveness than Alternative 5. The groundwater extractionsystem in Alternative 5 will compromise the effectiveness of theleachate extraction system (primary source control element) andmay result in groundwater impacts that would require long-termmanagement.

32

COMMENT:Alternative 3 may achieve a higher degree of long-termeffectiveness than Alternative 5 as the additional sourcecontrols in Alternative 5 will compromise the effectiveness ofthe primary source control element (leachate extraction system)and may subsequently degrade the quality of on-site aquifers.All three extraction systems (leachate, shallow aquifer, andprimary aquifer) are dynamic and interconnected. Pumping fromthe shallow aquifer will induce flow from the landfill. Pumpingfrom the primary aquifer will induce flow from both the shallowaquifer and the landfill.

The leachate levels in the landfill are higher than thegroundwater levels, therefore, a potential exists for downwardmigration from the landfill into the aquifer. When the landfillcap is added the leachate level will decrease, and the verticaldownward gradient will decline. This will reduce the potentialfor leachate to escape the landfill. When the cap is in placeand the gas/leachate extraction wells are operating, the leachatelevel will decline below the groundwater level. Because thegroundwater level will then be higher than the leachate level,the flow potential is upward and into the landfill. When theflow potential is inward, leachate will not leave the landfilland enter the groundwater system, as noted in the Proposed Plan(p.7).

The groundwater pumping in Alternative 5 will lower thegroundwater levels in the vicinity of the landfill to below theleachate levels in the landfill. This will create a downwardpotential for flow thereby allowing leachate to enter thegroundwater system. The leachate extraction system wouldtherefore no longer provide effective source control. Pumpingboth the shallow and primary aquifers will also create a headgradient between the shallow and primary aquifer, creating adownward potential for flow from the shallow to the primaryaquifer. Therefore, leachate that is no longer contained by theleachate extraction system can be induced downward into theshallow and primary aquifer as a result of pumping groundwater.Clearly, the additional source controls in Alternative 5 mayactually degrade the aquifers and result in unnecessary long-termmanagement. In fact, it is possible that once the aquifers'quality are degraded that they will never be restored.

It should also be noted that potential degradation of aquifers isnot recommended by U.S. EPA, as shown by the following citation."Since it is EPA's goal to restore groundwater toits beneficial uses, the Superfund program would rarely propose apump-and-treat remedy that would degrade pristine or onlyslightly contaminated water." (ARARs Qs & As: State Ground-WaterAntidegradation Issues, Publication 9234.2-11/FS, July 1990).

33

COMMENT:Existing conditions show that there are no VOCs or othercompounds above MCLs in groundwater adjacent to the landfill.Pumping the aquifer systems (Alternative 5) adjacent to thelandfill will increase the potential for contaminants to movefrom the landfill into the groundwater system, increasingtoxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) in the aquifers compared toeither existing conditions or after implementation of Alternative3.

RESPONSE:Based on the above comments regarding negative interaction of theleachate and ground water extraction systems, the Agenciesconsulted technical experts for assistance with the above issuesregarding possible degradation of ground water if the alternativeselected in the Proposed Plan was implemented at PRL.

One issue which is contradictory in this comment is theinteraction of leachate and ground water. Leachate and groundwater are not two separate systems Jbut are interconnected. Theleachate levels will not decline Jbelow the ground water levels,because they are not separate from each other.

Using the information in the FS, calculations were done toestimate drawdown of the water table based on extraction ofground water from the shallow and primary aquifers. Calculationsfor the shallow aquifer used information in the FS,' the estimated10 ground water extraction wells in the shallow aquifer, a totaldischarge of 900, 000 gpd, hydraulic conductivity of 500 ft/day,and assuming no contribution of water from the river (veryconservative assumption^. Drawdown at a radial distance of 100feet from the ground water wells was calculated to be anestimated .66 feet. Drawdown at the site boundary is less-than lfoot (it would actually be smaller due to the interaction of theriver). If leachate extraction wells were affected, it wouldonly be the leachate extraction wells closest to the southern.boundary of the landfill, and pumping systems in ground waterwells could Jbe adjusted as necessary.

The same calculations were done with Information in the FS on theextraction of ground water from the primary aquifer. Using adischarge of 500,000 gpd, transmissivity of 20,000 and noexpected contribution from the river (very conservative),drawdown at a radial distance of 100 feet from extraction wellsis 4 feet. Drawdown at 1,500 feet were less-than 1 foot.Therefore, extraction of ground water from the primary aquifercould increase downward migration of contamination into theprimary aquifer, except where the confining layer would limitvertical migration.

Therefore, the Agencies partially agree with this comment.Extraction of ground water from the primary aquifer adjacent to

34

the land/ill could increase downward migration of ground waterand cause further contamination in the primary aquifer, exceptwhere the confining till layer would limit vertical migration.

Based on this information, the Agencies determined that it wouldnot be appropriate to extract ground water from the primaryaquifer adjacent to the landfill as detailed in Alternative 5.Rather, Alternative 4 has been selected. The ground watercomponent of Alternative 4 includes the extraction of groundwater from the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill. Basedon the above calculations, ground water extraction from theshallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill should not interferewith the leachate extraction system.

NATURAL ATTENUATION

COMMENT:Alternative 3 will meet all pertinent state (Ohio AdministrativeCode and Ohio Revised Code) and federal ARARs (Clean Air Act andClean Water Act ARARs are covered by matching state regulationsin Ohio) for solid waste landfill closure and gas/leachatemanagement. U.S. EPA specifically states on Pages 12 and 13 ofthe Proposed Plan that Alternative 3 will comply with all ARARS.Therefore, the additional remedial action required by Alternative5 is not justified to provide ARAR compliance.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLS) set under the Safe DrinkingWater Act (SDWA) have not been exceeded on-site since April 1989(Table 1; Figure 1) indicating that contaminant reduction and

ARAR compliance has already occurred at the site by naturalattenuation, On-site groundwater extraction and treatment is,therefore, not justified for ARAR compliance, and Alternative 5is unnecessary.

COMMENT:Groundwater quality trends show that residual VOC concentrationsin on-site groundwater are naturally attenuating. Table lpresents a summary of VOC detections, and Figure I snows thedistribution of VOC detections in March 1993. Total VOCconcentrations in the shallow aquifer on-site have declined or,at the very least, remained level from December 1988 to thepresent (Figure 6) . Not only have the total VOC concentrationsdecreased, but the individual MCLs that were exceeded in December1988 or April 1989 have not been exceed since April 1989 (Figures7 to 13) .

VOCs in the primary aquifer on-site also show a declining trend(Figure 14) . There has only been one location directlydowngradient (MW04B; MW04BR) where-VOCs have been detected(Figure 15) . A 1 ugr/1 (J) (J-estimated) value was detected at

MW03B, but a duplicate sample had no detection (Figure 16) . A 1ugr/1 (J) Value was also detected at MW06B in one sampling event

35

(Figure 17), but MH06B ia not directly downgradient of thelandfill. MCLa have never been exceeded in the primary aquifer.Natural attenuation has been responsible for the decreased VOCconcentrations that previously had been released from thelandfill and, therefore, provides reduction of TMV. The improvedcap and leachate control provided by Alternative 3 will continueto provide reduction of TMV in grroundwater. Also, grroundwatermoni tor ing will be used to track grroundwater quality trends.

RESPONSE:When the Agencies stated in the Proposed Plan that Alternative 3will comply with all ARARs, we Relieved that risks associatedwith ground water contamination would be reduced by naturalattenuation.

However, based on the above comments, the Agencies consulted withU.S. EPA technical staff and requested review of the supportingdocuments and the data presented by the commenter supporting* theabove statements. The information provided to the Agencies inthe comment letter included figures on ground water qualitytrends. This information does not prove natural attenuation isoccurring at PRL. The trends are not consistent, and the dataacquisition is spaced too far apart to support the statement thatnatural attenuation is occurring at PRL. Temporary shifts inflow directions due to pumping or seasonal variations could causethese reductions in ground water contamination.

The information provided to the Agencies by the commenter doesnot support the statement that natural attenuation will addressall existing ground water contamination in a time-framecomparable to extracting and treating ground water. Ground watermodelling, a tool which could support the statement that naturalattenuation of ground water contamination may occur, was not doneat PRL. Additionally, information about numerous conditions inthe aquifer, which must be within certain parameters, the balanceof these parameters, and concentrations of contaminants in theground water, are all necessary to evaluate if naturalattenuation can or will occur. None of this information wasprovided to the Agencies to support the statement that naturalattenuation will address existing ground water contamination atPRL, in a time-frame comparable to extracting and treating groundwater.

Therefore, the Agencies do not agree with the commenter thatnatural attenuation is occurring or can occur at PRL.

The U.S. EPA's nine criteria includes the "Reduction of toxicity,mobility, or volume (TMV) through treatment". Alternative 3 doesnot reduce TMV through treatment.

36

COMMENT:The additional contaminant mass treated by the Alternative 5additional source controls is insignificant when compared to themass addressed by removal and treatment of leachate and gas byAlternative 3.

COMMENT:As detailed in the FS (Appendix E, pp E-8 and E-9), it isestimated that the additional source controls of Alternative 5(ground water extraction from the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill and treatment on-site) would only resultin an increase in volatile organic mass removal from groundwaterof only 10 percent. This increase is not significant.Therefore, the additional remedial action required underAlternative 5 is clearly not justified since no significantreduction in TMV will occur with implementation of thisalternative.

RESPONSE:The additional remediation in Alternative 4 of the shallowaquifer adjacent to the landfill Is justified. MCLs wereexceeded and unacceptable risks to human health and theenvironment are present in the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill. Extraction and treatment of leachate and ground waterin the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill will addressthese risks and achieve ARARs. By extracting and treating theleachate in the landfill and ground water in the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill, the two sources of ground watercontamination in the primary aquifer, both adjacent to thelandfill and south of the river (Eldorado Plat area), groundwater risks posed to human health and the environment will reduceand cleanup levels will be achieved.

ELDORADO PLAT MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION

COMMENT:The Proposed Plan (p.11) states that "Groundwater contaminationin the primary aquifer, adjacent to the landfill, is the probablesource of groundwater contamination south of the river." "Southof the river" should be "in Eldorado Plat" as stated on Page 4 ofthe Proposed Plan.

RESPONSE:The commenter is correct. The Proposed Plan did not clarifythroughout the document that "ground water south of the river"meant "ground water south of the river in the Eldorado Platarea". The ROD clarifies this issue.

37

COMMENT:The Proposed Plan (p.14) states "Alternative 5 utilizes treatmentto reduce TMV of groundwater in the shallow and primary aquifersadjacent to the landfill, which will reduce TMV of groundwatercontamination south of the river." As noted previously, there isno evidence to suggest that groundwater extraction at the sitewill reduce TMV of groundwater contamination in Eldorado Plat.

COMMENT:The additional source control in Alternative 5 is designed toaddress VOC concentrations in the Eldorado Plat area and there isno evidence that PRL is the source of Eldorado Platconcentrations.

The Proposed Plan states that groundwater contamination in theprimary aquifer adjacent to the landfill is the probable sourceof groundwater contamination in the Eldorado Plat Area (ProposedPlan, page 8). The primary aquifer adjacent to the landfill isnot the source of contamination in the Eldorado Plat area, asdiscussed below, and as demonstrated in the RI.

The type and extent of groundwater contamination adjacent to PRLis limited to sporadic occurrences of low VOC concentrations.The only significant VOC detection in the primary aquifer hasbeen 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA) ("ethane'-type VOC), and this hasonly been detected at the MH04B location. Chloroethane andchlorobenzene have been detected in low concentrations at MW04B(and MW04BR). No other VOC has been detected at any other on-site primary aquifer wells in four sampling events from December1988 to March 1993 tetrachloroethene (PCB), was detected at a 1ug/1 (J) concentration one time at MW03B; however, a duplicateanalysis indicated no detection). There has never been an MCLexceedance in the primary aquifer at PRL.

The VOCs detected south of the Great Miami River in the EldoradoPlat area are "ethene"- type VOCS. They have been detected onlyin the primary aquifer in low concentrations. MCLs have beenonly slightly exceeded at two monitoring wells and never at aresidential well. Only three wells out of 20 monitoring andresidential wells in Eldorado Plat have ever had any VOCsdetected. There is no evidence to suggest that the "ethane"-typecompounds detected in the primary aquifer at the site are relatedto the "ethene" compounds detected in the Eldorado Plat area.

In addition, there is insufficient evidence to conclude thatcontaminants found in Eldorado Plat are degradation products ofPRL contaminants. If biodegradation was occurring as thecontaminated groundwater migrates downgradient, one or more ofthe following transformation pathways would be expected (Dragun,J., The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials, HazardousMaterials Control Research Institute, 1988):

38

1,1,1-TCA --> 1,1-DCAPCE --> TCB --> 1,2-DCEPCE --> TCE --> 1,1-DCE --> 1,1-DCA

1,1-DCA was detected in the primary aquifer adjacent to PRL whiletrichloroethene (TCE) and 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) were detectedin the primary aquifer in Eldorado Plat. TCE and 1,2-DCE are notdegradation products of 1,1-DCA.

Also, if biodegradation was occurring, TCE would not be expectedto be persistent in Eldorado Plat if PRL was the source, givenits short biodegradation half-life and the low levels of TCE andPCE (TCE is a degradation product of PCB) detected at PRL.

Inorganic constituents in groundwater characteristic ofcontamination from landfill leachate are found in slightlyelevated concentrations in the shallow groundwater systemadjacent to PRL. These constituents include bicarbonate,chloride, sulfate, potassium, iron, and calcium. Theseconstituents are slightly higher than upgradient or backgroundvalues at the shallow on-site wells MW02A, MW03A, MW04A, MW07A,and MW4S. The concentrations of these constituents in the on-site primary aquifer wells and the shallow and primary EldoradoPlat monitoring and residential wells are within backgroundranges. This is further evidence that PRL is not the source, ofVOCs in the Eldorado Plat area.

The trend of chloride levels in the three primary aquifer wellsat the landfill identifies that only upgradient well MW12C showsan increasing trend in chloride levels. Downgradient wells,MW02B and MW04B, exhibit a level and possibly a very slightdecreasing trend. The levels at MW04B appeared to have had anupward trend from about 1983 to December 1988, then a downwardtrend is apparent.

Trends of specific conductance measurements of on-site shallowand primary aquifer wells show that specific conductance levelshave remained relatively level. The values are much more erraticin the shallow aquifer due to the influence of the Great MiamiRiver recharging or discharging to the shallow zone. The valuesin the primary aquifer are much more stable and show that therehas been no overall increase in specific conductance. If therewere a leachate plume developing or becoming better defined, thespecific conductance values would be expected-to be increasing,which they are not.

COMMENT:There is significant evidence to suggest that there are otherpossible sources of the Eldorado Plat sporadic VOCconcentrations. There are several areas of past waste disposalwithin and adjacent to Eldorado Plat that are closer to EldoradoPlat than PRL. The levees constructed south of the river and the

39

areas around the levees have considerable amounts of visiblerefuse, debris, and automotive parts and were reportedlyoriginally constructed with hospital demolition fill.

Previous studies have also identified other potential sources ofVOCs in the area of Eldorado Plat. The "Phase I Miami North WellField Environmental Testing and Development Program," prepared-for the City of Dayton by CH2M Hill in January 1988, identifiedmany potential sources, including:

Potential Source Location Description

Eldorado Plat South Side of GMR Discarded DrumContents/WWIISite

Gravel Pit Dump Site West of PRL Former DumpSite

The CH2M Hill study also identified evidence of dump sites andvarious junk piles in the Eldorado Plat area in 1965 aerialphotographs.

Aerial photographs of the area clearly show vehicles, junk,debris, and other materials on the north side of Eldorado Plat inthe 1960s and early 1970s. Also, SCA observed stacks of drums inEldorado Plat last year at a residential location, and at leastone of the houses in Eldorado Plat is currently a workshop forappliance repair.

The evidence suggests that these locations adjacent to EldoradoPlat are potential sources of VOCs in groundwater south of theGreat Miami River. In fact, TCE is a commonly used solvent anddiluent and is used for degreasing metal and electronic parts andin anesthetics and medicine. 1,2-DCE is also a commonly usedsolvent and is used as a refrigerant. These compounds were foundin Eldorado Plat groundwater but were not found in PRLgroundwater. Therefore, it is highly probable that these otherpotential sources are the source of VOCs in Eldorado Platgroundwater.

There is evidence of other sources of VOC concentrations inEldorado Plat, whose remediation is not the responsibility of SCAor the PRL Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).

RESPONSE:The Agencies consulted with technical staff at Ohio EPA, on theissue of contamination migrating from PRL to the Eldorado Platarea. Originally the Agencies believed that leachate from thelandfill was migrating into the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill, then vertically into the primary aquifer adjacent tothe landfill and then horizontally to the primary aquifer in the

40

Sldorado Plat area. However, this theory does not explain howcontamination was Identified In monitoring wells in the EldoradoPlat area, both above and below the discontinuous till layer.Discussions with technical staff and review of information in theRI identified that the Great Miami River (GMR) is shallow, andthe GMR'a influence on (i.e. discharge to) the shallow aquifer isprobably minimal at times. Therefore, the GMR is not necessarilya barrier to ground water contaminant migration under the river,to the Eldorado Plat area. Contamination from the shallowaquifer adjacent to the landfill could be migrating under the GMRto the Eldorado Plat area, immediately south of the GMR.Therefore, the source of the contamination in the Eldorado Platarea is most likely the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.This source is addressed by Alternative 4 through extraction andtreatment of the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.

Although the "ethene" contamination found in the Eldorado Platarea ground water appear not to be related to the mainly 'ethane1'compounds found in ground water adjacent to the landfill, the RIdid identify "ethenes" in the landfill gas vents (PCE, TCE),landfill liquids (DCE), and in the shallow aquifer adjacent tothe landfill (DCE). This means that the • ethenes* found inground water in the Eldorado Plat area could be the result ofcontamination migrating from PRL. Although TCB was found inground water in the Eldorado Plat area and TCB was not found inground water adjacent to the landfill, TCB could have migratedfrom the PRL. Methane, which is present in the landfill, can actas a catalyst to degradation of VOCs. Therefore the "ethenes"adjacent to the landfill could be degrading faster than "ethenes"which have migrated to the Eldorado Plat area. Which is why thelower degradation products of "ethenes" are found in ground wateradjacent to the landfill (DCE) and the higher "ethene"degradation products (TCE) are still present in the Eldorado Platarea.

Information presented by the commenter on inorganic constituentsin ground water and trends of chloride levels and specificconductance do not conclusively support the above comment. U.S.EPA's technical staff reviewed this information and determinedthat the trends are not consistent, and the data acquisition isspaced too far apart to support the conclusions.

The Agencies acknowledge that there is a possibility that othersources for the contamination identified in Eldorado Plat exist.However, RI data identifies ground water contamination betweenPRL and the Great Miami River and immediately south of the GMR inEldorado Plat. The Agencies believe that the data identifies PRLas the source of ground water contamination in the Eldorado Platarea.

41

IMPLEMENTABILITY

COMMENT:Alternative 3 is readily implementable, while the additionalsource controls (on-site groundwater extraction and treatment) inAlternative 5 may be difficult to operate, maintain and monitorbecause of the close proximity of the Great Miami River and thepotential for flooding.

RESPONSE:The Agencies disagree with this comment. Ground water extractionand on-site treatment of ground water are proven and often usedtechnologies for addressing ground water contamination atSuperfund sites. These technologies should not be difficult tooperate, maintain or monitor. The extraction wells will bedesigned to prevent interference in case of flooding. The groundwater treatment system will be on-site, on the north side of thelandfill, close to Powell Road, and should not be affected incase of flooding.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

COMMENT:According to the NCP, U.S. EPA believea that cost is a relevantfactor for consideration as part of the selection of the remedyfrom among protective, ARAR-compliant alternatives, and notmerely as part of the implementation phase.

Alternative 5 does not provide an incremental benefit overAlternative 3 because the increase in cost for additional sourcecontrols (estimated at a minimum of an additional $6 million butcould be as high as $38 million) in Alternative 5 does notprovide an incremental increase in the mass of compounds treated.

CERCLA, at section 121(a), states that "the President shallselect appropriate remedial actions ... which are in accordancewith this section and, to the extent practicable, the nationalcontingency plan, and which provide for cost-effective response."Thus, cost-effectiveness is established as a condition for remedyselection, not merely as a consideration during remedial designand implementation. Further in the statute, at sectionI21(b)(l), Congress again repeats the requirement that only cost-effective remedies are to be selected, as follows: "The Presidentshall select a remedial action that is protective of human healthand the environment, that is cost effective, and that utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment ... to the maximumextent practicable." Therefore, cost-effectiveness is similar tothe threshold criteria (protection of human health and theenvironment and compliance with ARARS) in that it is a statutoryrequirement with which an alternative must comply in order to beeligible for selection as the remedy.

42

The actual coat of Alternative 5 may be significantly higher thanthe FS and Proposed Plan estimates due to the actual extractedquantity of groundwater required for containment and due to theneed to treat naturally-occurring compounds to achieve surfacewater discharge limits. In addition, most of the water extractedfrom the shallow wells will be induced from the river therebyrequiring treatment of large quantities of groundwater withpotentially nondetectable concentrations of compounds of concern.In addition, as previously stated, pumping groundwater from theaquifers will induce leachate flow from the landfill and maysubsequently contaminate the aquifers with compounds which wouldrequire additional treatment. As a result, groundwaterextraction and treatment could result in additional costs of ashigh as $38 million compared to Alternative 3.

As discussed above, it is estimated that the additional sourcecontrols of Alternative 5 would only result in an increase in VOCmass removal of 10 percent. The additional cost of Alternative 5compared to Alternative 3, estimated from $6 to $38 million,would represent an increase in cost of between 35 and 224percent. The $6 million represents the cost difference betweenAlternatives 3 and 5 using costs developed in the FS. Since theFS, additional cost estimates were performed to evaluatepotential impacts on costs,due to the potential degradation ofaquifer quality by implementation of Alternative 5. These costestimates indicate that there is a potential $38 million costincrease. Clearly, Alternative 5 does not provide an incrementalbenefit over Alternative 3.

Alternative 5 is not cost-effective and, therefore, does notcomply with this statutory requirement.

RESPONSE'The NCP identifies in 300.430(f) (1) (ii) (D) that each remedialaction selected shall be cost-effective, provided that it firstsatisfies the threshold criteria (protective of human health andthe environment and attain or waive ARARs). Cost-effectivenessis one of the five balancing criteria (long-term effectivenessand permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV)through treatment, short-term effectiveness, andimplementability), to determine overall effectiveness. Overalleffectiveness is then compared to cost to ensure that the remedyis cost-effective. A remedy shall be cost-effective if its costsare proportional to its overall effectiveness (NCP 300.430(f) (1) (ii) (D)) .

Alternative 4 reduces TMV through treatment of leachate from thelandfill and ground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent tothe landfill. The mass of compounds treated by Alternative 4will not be very different from Alternative 3 because theleachate treatment component will produce the majority of themass of compounds generated by the remedial action. The Agencies

43

Relieve that treatment of ground water in the shallow aquiferadjacent to the landfill Is necessary to address and reduceground water risks and provide overall protection to human healthand the environment and provide long-term effectiveness andpermanence. The selected remedy is implementable. Potentialadverse short-term risks (short-term effectiveness) posed to on-site workers will be controlled by implementation of engineeringcontrols.

The cost difference between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 is$3.69 million. Alternative 4 provides additional long-termeffectiveness and permanence, provides overall protection tohuman health and the environment, and reduces TMV throughtreatment by extracting and treating leachate from the landfilland ground water from the shallow aquifer adjacent to thelandfill. By extracting and treating leachate and ground waterfrom the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill, Alternative 4will address the two sources of ground water contaminationpresent at PRL. The Agencies believe that the additional coststo provide additional overall effectiveness is cost-effective.

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER SITES' RODS

COMMENT:Implementation of Alternative 5 is inconsistent with remediesselected for numerous similar sites.

The selection of groundwater extraction and treatment at PRL (asin Alternative 5) is not being applied consistently by U.S. EPAand the State of Ohio. At similar Superfund landfill sites, U.S.EPA did not recommend groundwater extraction and treatment.

RESPONSE:Every Superfund site Is different and It is not appropriate tocompare the Powell Road Landfill Superfund Site to otherSuperfund Sites In the Region or nationally. One unique aspectof PRL is that the Great Miami River burled valley aquifer, whichunderlies PRL, Is a sole-source aquifer for drinking water forthe City of Dayton. This sole-source aquifer was a major factorin the decision of the ground water remedial action for PRL.

SHORT-TBRM EFFECTIVENESS

COMMENT:The Proposed Plan (p. 16} states "The timeframe to achieveprotection with Alternative 5 is estimated at 5 to 6 years, whichis the shortest timeframe estimated for any alternative(Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 each had a 5- to 6-year estimatedtimeframe)". The Plan should state that Alternatives 3, 4, and 5all are estimated to achieve protection in 5 to 6 years. ThePlan should not imply Alternative 5 has the shortest timeframe.

44

RESPONSE:The Agencies identified in the Proposed Plan that Alternatives 3,4 and 5 all have 5-6 year time frames to achieve protection. Thecommenter is correct. The Proposed Plan should have clearlystated that Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 all have the same estimatedtimeframe to achieve protection.

LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS

COMMENT:The Proposed Plan (page 13), states that Alternative 3 willprovide long-term effectiveness and permanence by eliminating thesource for future ground water contamination.RESPONSE:The Proposed Plan did state that Alternative 3 will provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. The FS supports thisstatement by identifying that natural attenuation of existingground water contamination will occur. U.S. EPA's technicalstaff reviewed the RI, FS, Proposed Plan, and public comments, todetermine if natural attenuation is already occurring at PRL.The information provided to the Agencies in the comment letterincluded figures on ground water quality trends. Thisinformation does not prove natural attenuation is occurring atPRL. The trends are not consistent, and the data acquisition isspaced too far apart to support the statement that naturalattenuation is occurring at PRL. Temporary shifts in flowdirections due to pumping or seasonal variations could causethese reductions in ground water contamination.

The information provided to the Agencies by the commenter doesnot support the statement that natural attenuation will addressall existing ground water contamination in a time-framecomparajble to extracting1 and treating ground water. Ground watermodelling, a tool which could support the statement that naturalattenuation of ground water contamination may occur, was not doneat PRL. Additionally, information a&out numerous conditions inthe aquifer, which must be within certain parameters, the balanceof these parameters, and concentrations of contaminants in theground water, are all necessary to evaluate if naturalattenuation can or will occur. None of this information wasprovided to the Agencies to support the statement that naturalattenuation will address existing ground water contamination atPRL, in a time-frame comparable to extracting and treating groundwater.

Therefore, the Agencies do not agree with the commenter thatnatural attenuation is occurring or can occur at PRL.

The selected remedial action will address the two sources ofground water contamination at PRL; leachate in the landfill andground water in the shallow aquifer. Therefore, although

45

Alternative 3 may provide long-term effectiveness and permanenceonce ground water cleanup levels are achieved, it does notdirectly address one of the sources of ground watercontamination; the shallow aquifer adjacent to the landfill.

GENERA^ COMMENTS

COMMENT:Alternative 3 will comply with all of the NCP requirements,accomplish the necessary protection and cleanup in the same timeas Alternative 5, and is significantly more cost-effective.

COMMENT:Alternative 3 provides protection of human health and theenvironment by controlling the source. The additional sourcecontrol provided by Alternative 5 does not provide additionalprotection.

RESPONSE:The Agencies do not agree with this comment. Aa discussed in theROD, section X., the Agencies believe that Alternative 4, theselected remedial action, is the best alternative to protecthuman health and the environment, will comply with ARARs and iscost effective. The selected remedial action utilizes permanentsolutions and treatment technologies to reduce taxicity,mobility, or volume of the sources of ground water contaminationadjacent to PPL.

46

U.S. KPA ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDPOWBLL ROAD LANDFILL

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIOORIGINAL04/29/93

=EC:S:ENT •;TIE'OE3CR!?TIGN

•00/00

"'00/X1 j.5. E?A

around later Pollution Source Inventory'.inafill Fact Sheet

Insoection Authority under tne flajorEnvirontencai Acts

X'/OO/OO J.3. EPA Nitionai Priorities List Site: Po*eil HataUndhll iSescriotion jna Sictaround)

•i 0'''/00'\">0 !:tate o* Ohio]

: / v / 0 0 / 0 0 3o«er-1orner 'j.S. EPA"estinq LaDoratone-s. inc.

:o»eil Road Landfill Closure Aeduireients

Triolet Sis Ion it or Test Mil

3 lj'21/s' 'ontaotery Co.Sanitary Ocot. 4Eoara of Co.loiaissioners

Rules I neoulationi: «ontao«ery Co. SanitaryDeot. Incinerators

. J.. QEPA Voqel. R..nontoonry CountyHealth Dist.

Letter re: Soecific Findinq s of OEPA'sEvaluation

3 "M:/71 inner. 4.. Barqer. F..:outneast District Road Landfilljffice

Letter Fomardinq a Data Sheet Froi theSoutheast District Office

? '•'. '2'" Vni Conservancy Bindeaan. J.,District nontqotery County

Healtn Out.

10 10/17/': Jont, ft., Kalker.A., Ohio ONR

11 ?6/OoM3 BindMU. J.. Minkle. ft.. ODHlontaoMry Countywealth 3ist.

Sround Mater Quality Saiaiinqlontaoeery Co.: Barqer Landfill (IncludesFiaures and Data)

Reoort of Investigation of TNO nontqoMrrCounty Landfill Sites llncludinq BarqerLandfill)

Letter re: Reduestinq the Owner of POMIIRoad to Close the Oowunq in tne Bank toPrevent Recurrent Floodind

10

.-'C

-21/73 Cireicneai. *.,•cCall Printinq Co.

lantel. j..retainer :e'vi:eslie.

.etter re iejoorm to i Swum for t"e:>,e«icai "ak«uo at 'rcducts us«d ino 3isge«3:r it

'1 ,« "* -a»ara. J.. -E.:

1,17. "4 -eiour, «.. ."ErA

Solids

. j.. 3£?A

loon. J.. ]£PAContainer S

:ar. re: Pjrcentaae sreandowi or

re: Coiou:nt f'oi nr«cr Eioloxee at::»tlt Aoao Lanofill Abouc DuiOinq Practice!

Cover Letter for Cheiicai inai»sn :f f*iiLiauid and Shoo* Materials

is /I yS/71! 'oore. J. , 3EFA

"oslir. J.. OEPA

13 :i/12/74 einoMan. J..•ontaoMry

19 03/21/75 3indM*n. J.."ontaowry County-ulth Out.

20 07/15/7J •ontaoitry Co.Sanitary Dcgt. kroara of Co.

:i 01 /29 /74 Celanty, L..SyitHi

22 02/19/76 5:nd»t*n. J..nofitQMtrr CountyHtilth lift.

:; 12/02/76 Ratftidi, A., OEM

24 01/18/77 lontdONry Co.Sanitary Dfot. IBoard of Co.

•riant, j., Landfill Letter re: ^eceiot of Paint Sludges OeoositeoSyite« at POMII Road

loore. J.. GEFA lew Describing aeoloaic and iround MaterConditions it POMI! Road Landfill Relativeto Disposal of Industrial Liouid Maste

lantel. 0.. Letter re: Receiot of the 10/11/74 andContainer Services 1J/17/74 Letters and sketchesInc.

Settlnire. R..Landfill aysten

Bindtun. J..lofltaoiery CountyHealth Oist.

Delaney. L..Landfill Systeis

Delaney. L..Landfill Systeis

Letter re: Insoection of POM 11 Road Landfillon 3/13/74

Rules and Regulations. Montgomery Co. 4Sanitary Ocot., Division of Solid tfastelanaqeeeflt. Resolution No. 1909

Letter re: Request of Recycling Cardboard atthe Unloading Area

Letter re: Prooosed Salvaae SystM

Letter re: arandfathcred Landfill SitesCorrection of Novetotr Letter Solid Haste

Resolution lending Rules I Regulations.nontaoMry Co. Sanitary Scot.. Division ofSolid Haiti flanaqcMnt. Section 4, Paragraph2. Hitn Section Attached.

"core. J.. ;EPA:erv,

. *.. £nvi. .ettfr '?: ;:*eil Scad tandhii :houi3 NO'.":ns:3ereo as a Potential landfill 'jr reL . s o c s a i 3^ .ar je :ea«ents :? «c

I ;*. 73 _ e e . S.. D*»ton "?'.ir, J., C:ntServ ices. In:.

1205

•I I *."5 .ee. :., 3»»'estinq ;inc.

'etir. J.. ContainerServices, inc.

>ansiutal tetter ana Uo Dnli:nq LCSjatid 2 / 1 3 / ^ 3

];HA, j.5. jeot, of.aoor

GShA. 'J.S. Seot. of

Cccuoationtl ticalth Suidilint for1.1.1.2-Tetracnlorotthani

Occupationai Heaitn ouidfhni forTetracnloroitnvlenf

lu

'•79 *<jore. J-. it?A Soinqt, C., .anafillSyttH*

Letttr re: *ecoutndations for liorovtdOoerationj at thi ?omll fload Landfill Basedon trie Reoulationt Listed

}-/:9/79 loore. J.. GEPA reter. J.. Landfill Letter re: ftecciot of the PoMli RoadSanitary Landfill Qotrations Reoort. withCoutnts

Jinaeean. j..^ontooMry Countyneaith Qist.

Hartbarqer. (.. SCAServices

Letter re: A List of the Corrective ActionsAgreed Joon

;ino«ean. J.,lontao«r» County

Dist.

Hartbarqer, (.. SCAServices

Letter re: Routine Insotction of the r>o*tllRoad Landfill on a/ a/ 79

;* ;a ;?/"' Bmdeean. J.,lontpoiery Countyicaltn 3ist,

35 0 7 / 0 5 / 7 9 BindMM, J. .NoctqoMry CountyHtilth Dist.

, J.,County

Health Dist.

Hartbarqer, (., SCAServices

H«rtbarqtr. H.. SCAServices

Settletire. R.. SCAServices

Letter re: Inspection on a/13/79

Letter re: Inspection on a/27/79

Letter re: Disposal of Hospital Hastes

•o s»:»f unsay tutu 'OB/tl/t u°

HUPW'1 p»oy n»«>d jo uoqaaoiuijo UOUMJIJUO;! :u

pajsn'OE/£Z/» JD

jo

}t pioyjo

jo uon3»OJUT«t

UOTJ3MIUIOB/91 /T

0} UOT)TPP«

uo

0)

uomaosu*-41/01 •":

p»o&"3 -

c aui pin:-

i S T X ]

a: :nc 't: 'E- : I:UTC apru siuaiaojoi; :«j

oai:a.-:- DUI*;ur us:::j» ;jooa. ai:

nan:. .:

"3 '

) 'JiDJ»Q)J»H

i!3Uj>c

•;$!Q3 O

"f 'iitMpUTe OB'IO'Si 8»

"p -umpiTc 9r

"f 'UfHpUTS OS. ' J ' iV iT

• • f -uMapwTc f c ' / f c ' . i ; t t

•15K mT'i"

rDD^ U0||

• ; S T Q qji»»'.lobiuo

•f -unapu:: t. £' 't il

••; -jaon;: ._ .;

T £ t . / ' l '? .

rrrrr:

BO-:"1-rrr: *s»:

2.-: i:::

-•J "II"zzzzzizzx :zz:zzzzzzzzzzzzz

iO.aO hndeian, J.. 5tuber. E.. ?c«u"oniflOMry County "oafl Lanah:1,-ealth But.

:•: :; hnaetan. J.. QE'A .indfili itsteis.Inc.

;esuits :f :ni a-' 5'j hsoection

:."OH.n. .'.. IEP4 "itirs. J.. F"0*0 Landfill

;oii(j Msti Disoosai vioiacian Mot::*

11 II 30 :snninq. J.. GEFft stubtr. £.. Fomiinoad Landfill

:'• )4":-3/31 *cCartr. C.. QEPA loon, J.. GEFA

:« «:Carty. C.. 3EPA loort. J.. OEFA

?5 04(03/31 «naht. T.. OEPA

:a •jt/n/sl Stubtr. E., SCA:crvic*« of Ohio.Inc.

57 •,'*• 05/91 Btubtr. E.. SCAServices

:9 0«/0'.-31 J.5. EPA

landfill S»stiM.Inc.

«no.ht. T.,Nont^OMrv CountyHealth Out.

toon, J., QEPA

I? 09/04/81 rfooo«r, R.. Nurray. J.. SCASomtr-florntr Services of Ohio.Testmo Laboratoni- inc.f. Inc.

:0 1.1-00/81 iroM, 0.. Craifl,R.. it »1. U.S. EPA

03/00/82 S«hHM. J.. MOM

s2 03/23/32 «oore. J.. OEPA Tati, 8.. SolidHastt NanaqeMflt

63 J&/01/82 Hruht, T.. OEPA Landfill S*ste«.Inc.

Letter ^Q'MarQina Analysis fteoort t:r :neMater Sae-oie Collected on tne i.inauii

on S/13/30

Inte'-Office CoMunicjtion re: 3' 18/30 SiteInvestigation

re: ?o«ell Road Landfill flonitsrina> Includes Haoi

Solid Haste Disoosal Violation Notice

leto iiesoondinq to Violations Noted in theInspection Dated 3/31/81

Letter re: Nn Toooqraohic Nao Shoainq theLocations of the itanitorinq Mils BeingInstalled in June

Notification of Hazardous Haste Site

Reoort on Soil Borinas and PiezoMterInstallations at PoMil Road Landfill

Project Suit-try: Ttchniaues for Hand linoLandbome Spills of Volatile HazardousSubstances

Article Entitled, 'ChMicals in Our Lives:Nhat is This Thinq C»lled TCE"" (IncludesAttachments I

Letter re: 3/23/82 Telephone Conversation

Solid Haste Disposal Violation Notice

4

21

. " 1::zs

"I "us 3£:CSirTICNZS3ZZ33ZZ

Mnqnt. T..IcmtqoMry Countyd»ilth Oist.

2isntf. S..

. £.. .»nanil Lttttr rcr»jrama tnt Fincinqs o? .asc*tdntsai< s in

:na .jscratcrit-5. in:.

"urrj». j.. 3CA rtoort on ir.staiUtion af srounanatir:«rvicn OT GUIS. i»anKari.ia OliiInc.

:.;''::/33

"sort. J.. JEPA

loon, j.. GEPA

•Hi 19/33 J.3. EPA

<hitiori, L.. 3EPA IIM n: Cast No. i;54. Lanofii! CLandfill SritHf, Inc.

lurrav, J.. SCA lettir re thi Ntttinq and Iniotctiopal 1acrvicii Rivin of 2' 10/83 and th« fminq of Paisivt

Atiospniric Piot Vent i

Filt Site Insotction Atoort 14

:CA Servicii of fttoort on Installation of T»o Srounovatir IOhio. Inc. itanitorino *«lls

rtstinq Laboratont-s. inc.

:5/17/53

'1 06/01/83

72 (i6/2<»/33

Brunt. P.. Ecoloqt t U.S. EPAEimronnnt

07/05/33

74 10/28/83

02/09/84

Jihodtf. J.. SCAStrvicts

Dunty, R..BoMftr-NorntrTtttinq L.Doratorit-«. inc.

lurray. j.. SCAStrvicts

Laitolit B.,tariraMMtilRtfNTCft Sroup. Inc.

Srilt. T. and Yot.0., Hubtr HtiqhtsFirt Otot.

Xnqht. T..NontdMtrr CountyHtilth Ottt.

SCA Strvicts ofOhio. Inc.

floort, J., OEPA

76 04/00/84 U.S. EPA

Prtliiinary

Lttttr rt: Plant for Uoqradinq tht 6aiControl Facilitin at Po«tll Road. «ithOravinqs and Hat Attachtd

Rtoort on Soil Borinq and Installation ofTnoltt Sas Honitorinq Htlls at PoMli RoadLandfill

TranMittal NtM for Enqinttrinq Rtoort andHao for Installation of tht ftultiLartrtd Ntthant Nonitorinq Mils for PontllRoad Landfill

SCA Strvicts RtnltJ of tht Itonitor Mil Ttsts Shomnq 13Btnitflt

floort, J.. OEPA Chronoloqr of Firt Calls at tht PoMil RoadLandfill

PoMll Road Landfill [NPL Sittl Dtscnotionand Baclqround As of 9/83 and Status As of4/84

:s» :«»»*»

':'o/'ji)/84 'J.5. EPA PL 3:ti::«t:no * 33 jna

:* Sunn* -crg«

•tiiif, !... Inc.

:•:• 11 • 02/34

51 il;v5'84

52 :;;:3/34

53 il•13/34

34 i:/:a/84

as i:/:a/84

86 11/28/84

3/

38

39

'0

12/04/84

12/10/84

01/14/83

01/23/85

01/30/8!

Jabcact. J.. j3 ally

Jaley. 0.. Journal ?;ieHeraio

Hiadon. *.. Bales. F.Nontaoiery CountyHealth Deot.

-Mdon, N., slidsoe. K.lontqoMry CountyHealth Deot.

4iadon, M., Huff. Ronald. Nr.HontqoMry County and Mrs.Health Deot.

«i*don, N.. Ciark Oil CoeoanyHontqoMry CountyHealth Deot.

Aeadon, N.. Area Residents offlontpotwry County PoMll Road LandfillHealth Dist.

Fill

Btrgstroi, N.. 0£PA Buck ley. R.. U.S.£PA

PONTI, R.. U.S. EPA Laki. C.. U.S. £PA

Powri. R.. U.S. EPA Ana Rnidtnts ofPoMil Road Landfill

Ballotti. D. and Bovdin. R., U.S. EPAstiioson. K.. Meston

le«o rt: 6n Coiiec:::n

Article. 'EPA Jriers a trailer Parkto SNitcn to City later Line'

Xevsoaoer 4rticle. <r«lbot 'nstiaates:f Mater Contamination'

Laboratory Analysis of Bales' Htll Hater

Laboratory Analysis or Bledsoi s Well nater

Laboratory Analysis of Huff's Hell Hater

Laboratory Analysis of the Clark Station sHell Hater

Letters to Residents of Dayton, OH re: theResults of the Laboratory Analysis on the "wHater Sacoles Taken Froc Their Hell onil/5/84 «nd 11/13/84

List of Know Hells Not Already Sawled

Letter Fonurding Available Data on the VQCContaeinated Aquifer in Dayton. OH. «ith (lagsAttached

Request for Aerial Photo Survey

Letter re: Saeohnq of Hells

Ground Hater Contamination Hork Plan

isaaaaaasaaaaaaaa

T ;/-)e/85 «o:uh, d.. Mitt ?3«tr«. *.. >..-. £=* '.etttr -•: *utt "anaotMflt Canmiunts amlanaotawnt, inc. -:n?s

I v ' 5 ? r9«trt. R.. J.3. crA Nifltw. *.. ..i. ;:* :fl!it ?.ec:r: re: jj»ton nouittr C

I il 35 »a:uh. <.. «*«tt Pontn. f t . , j.j. crn '.e:ter «•«: Mi 35 fettino it sc»t!i.inonli :: LCCICI ;'30ostc scr^as

'*! 'M3>i5 -«nr<f, »., City or 4daitus, >.. u.5. Lttttr rt: ,.*« at Sntdul ActionJirton £r4 ;ar fw Ohio NFL Situ

3t M'-55 rs*tri. R.. J.S. £FA *o:un, *.. Mtttt ^honi and Convtrsation StcordJ rroi yanouslanadtttnt. inc.. tt Oatts rt: tfork on Ntlls II ano 12al.

'• )2 11,35 5o»trs. fi.. U.S. EPft Narctitiki. Hubtr Phont Rtcord rt: Rnidnt of PoMii RoadHts. Rti. Ptoutitinq Oil Data iMtdiatily

;5 :: i:/35 Sucnanan. 3.. *oxic ftaaakus. V.. J.S. -etttr *•: uack of RI/FS Fundinq *or stvtnAction rrojtct £PA Ohio Nfl Sittt

'" •):;:i/8J Faitrs. S.. j.5. ERA *onq. 5.. U.5. EFA fhont Rtcora rt: RNOOHM to Lttttr Frot thtCity of Dayton CoMisumir Hhicn A»ktd.•What Mill EFA Do About PoMll Road?*

100 o:/22/3J >o»trs, S.. U.S. EPA Gnat. R., Mtston Phont Rtcord rt: SaMhno TtaporarilySusotfldtd Out to Inaccttiibihty of Oils IIand 12

lOL ''2 15/85 ..5. EPA Kazoo. 8.. OEPA and Phone Rtcord rt: Orilhna Ctastd until FloodKozuh, V., Kaitt Katirs So Back DOMHanaqMtnt. Inc.

102 '•;/ 26/35 >.c:un. *.. Maitt Barbtr. 8., iastt Htto rt: PoMll Road Landfill Suotrfund 6MIiinaatitnt. Inc. Nanaqwtnt, Inc. Projtct Dtlavi

103 >>:/2a/B! POWJ. R.. U.S. EPA Btrattroi, N., OEPA Phont Rtcord rt: Rnidtntial Oil DataRtltau

i)« o;, 04/85 AdMkM, V.. U.S. Htnry. N., City of Rttponst to 2/13/8) Lttttr rt: Fundina forEN Day ton TM Ohio NPL Situ

105 03/03/8) QOi Public Ntm RtltMt: 'Rnvlti of Hattr SaMlts 5ho>That tht nattr Prtitnti No lutdiatt HtalthHazard*

106 '>3/08/85 Kulia. o.. U.S. EPA Filt TtltDhont Convtrtation «ith ROM Fown rt:Eitratncy Actions

:::i .,. i -. -'.ris** ::*HX

>M:.S5 ?:•««. R.. -j.3. ErA

;o*ii. }..Sowtr-Norntr"mina ;.a3flratorif= . Ir.c.

::t:»orr;j. S..<Uitt Hanactmtni.inc.

v* 2!/85 -iitr. >... ETC

lanion. N.. tfaittlanaotmt. Inc.

^daikus. •/.. J.3.E?A

«o;uh. *.. iiiittlanaqtftflt. Inc.

»3:'jn. H., Hattt*tnaqtMnt. Inc.

;E::?;ESTss*******

io:un. *..lanaatmtn'.. :.-:..5n*c. *.. oitsn

p.oian. •.. ftai'.tWanaotmtnt. :•:.

'hon» fit cords rt: Sorino Mil t:

'.ttttr r«: A List of :«u:t/C;dt DtnqnationiCurrtntly Beina ystd

Ino rt: Borina 1103

11: •:<*. 08/93

114 04/OB/B9

ill •:•»• 12/33%n«ittnt. Inc.

lozuh, N.. MaittRanaqtMnt. inc.

loort. J.. OEPA

Buchanan, 5.. ":xicAction Prgjtct

«cIliac. P.. ETC

Ktllas. R.. MatttNanaqtMflt. Inc.

Btrqstroi. «., QEPft

iia

117

•aiun, H.. Haiti Btrqitroi, «., 3EPAt. Inc.

.J5/02/35

OS/15/BS

icrostroi, R.. OEPA Kozvh. ».. KaittNanaqMnt. Inc.

Ttltohont too rt: fttiulti of TM Satolti,Mith tht Actual Rtoort 9tinq FemardtO

Lttttr rt: 1984 First ana Stcono 5i«iAnnual orounwattr Bonitonna Stjuiti

Lttttr Rtioonoinq to Rtqutst for Infortationon Proqrtn of Stvt* Ohio NPL Sitti

Lttttr rt: Confirmation Analmi of SaioltH1748

NtM rt: Uodatt fltttinq, 4/5/85 «ith HtrbEaqon

Lttttr rt: Rtquttt for 6roundnattr itanitorinqData for tht City of Oar ton Htlifitloi. SunnyAcrn Itobili HOM Court, and Othtr DataRtltvant to PoMll Road Landfill

Lttttr rt: Analytical RMHlti for a RtqionalPtrsotctivt

Lttttr rt: VOC Data from Local Mtili

113 05/15/BS Fitzmmrrn, S.. Powri, R.. U.S. EPA Lttttr rt: U.S. EPA Hattr Anaiyui fitiulti

Inc.

119 05/22/83 Boat. R., MtitM Btrqitrom. H.. QEPA Lttttr For«ardinq All tht Aahtical Rnultifttctivtd by tht U.S. EPA fro* IT Corp.. ERTLabaoratory

i:0 Oe/11/35 IcSrw. j., U.S. EPA Adaikitf. V.. U.S.EPA

Oirtctinq Invntiqation of LocalConctrni About PottI1 Road Landfill Fundinoand Efftcti on Aouiftr. Uith Attachttnts

:-*e -*.'*& «E::S;ET •:*:-. :EJ:?:?T::N

ill ' >3/l2;33 Btrqstrot. H.. CEPA 5uc*it». S.. j.5. "omtorina «tii installation far 5r;unoE?A

/IS/i! !3i*ri, ».. w .3 . E?A Pit:iorr;«. 5.. wicttr StautsttM 'J.j. ErA 4nai««is a:•itti nanaatttnt jrounOMtfInc.

.I! :•*• H <5 I;nstinttl9s. 8.. 1c6rw. J.. u.s. £?* HfN uticribinq 5tioi *»tn ts Suoono toJ.S. ERA i.3Cil Concirni About Ef'ictj ar Aquirtr

LI4 07'04/3} Eiaon. H., h. 3. Kozuh. *.. ««tt Letttr SuiMrmnq thi KvdroqMioqic 2atiEiqon Jr. >Un*qMtnt Inc. ^icmtly ObtainM

;:5 <>7/:4.33 Uildvoqtl. >., U.S. 03Mrs, '... U.S. EPA Littir rt: U.S. EPA Mitinq cht Rttaindtr :fEPA tnt Ciooritorv StMit

:Zi "5/i:/S5 >i«lsan, n.. Jwdni. R.. J.S. EPA Rtport Entitltd. 'A Public Htilth AtitiiMnt":ntao«r» County or tht City of Dayton » Unqtrqrouno Drinunq

Slot. Cattr Rt*ourcn'

127 vo/l'/S? fuciltr. 4.. U.S. v'tndtrlaan. 6.. U.S. Ntto rt: Rtftrral for RtMdial Action of tht iEPA EPA PoNli Road Landfill SroundMttr

128 09'0);8! «*ldvoqtl, K., U.S. Aiidiich. 6., Phont Rtcord rt: ConvtrutiOR Uodatinq 1EPA ConqrntMn Tony ConqrtSMin fltp. T. Hall on PoMil Road

Hall's Offict Landfill

129 09/09/35 Atidncti. S.. HaUvoqti. K.. U.S. Covtr Lttttr N/Prni RtltaM 3Csnqrnstan Tony EPA

i's Offict

130 [<» 03/95 <<tdfitid, H.. U.S. Ualdvoqtl, X.. U.S. Phont fttcord rt: Discussion of City of 1EPA EPA and 0. Staartf Dayton s Orinkina Hattr

131 10/09/85 icozuh. U.. Hastt Poiitrs. R.. U.S. EPA Lttttr rt! Suptrfund Ettrqtncy Study. Kith 5nanaqtctnt. Inc. Final Rtport Attichtd

132 11/04/85 Maldvoqtl. K., U.S. Kozuh. H.. Uastt Lttttr Forvardinq Photographs Taktn on tht 1EPA ManaqtMnt. Inc. 10/22/8S Trip

133 11/22/83 Porttr, J.. U.S. EPA U.S. EPA. Rtqion V J.S. EPA Suidanct on Endanqtrttnt Asstssttnt 17

134 03/05/86 Stont, C.. U.S. EPA HOMT. J.. Mastt Lttttr rt: PRP Htttino in Colutbus Offict 1itanaqmnt Inc.

133 03/05/86 Stont. C.. U.S. EPA Hoisr. J.. Uastt Lttttr rt: U.S. EPA. OEPA and PRP Ntttinq on 1Nanaqntnt Inc. tht RI/FS

13« 07'l&/86 Sufftcy, J.. U.S. Bruct. 0.. Nt«o rt: Sitt Visit and tht RI Hork Plan 2EPA Taliaftrro. D.. tt

al, U.S. EPA

10

.:« X30S :?•rsss :***

10'3i;36 toshitani. J..JinqfiiStr. j.. it«i. C3N

.1 j* 3o Jufficy, j.. y.s.•PA

'.'..

'3:un. *.Nanaotttnt rAfrica, inc.

r')nstutai Lttctr. dttn tht CoMunitr

.ittir re: jrafi »or« Pl*n ror tnt f t l /FS

." 11.14'36 juffier, j.. o.s.EFA

utAart. j.. C:t::in :iont fitcord rt: ^rivatt Citi:in Atouttt '.:it Hot Abnast of Haootninoi

1*0 )i")5-S7 Tntiovt, R..Conoco, Inc.

141 03/17/87 Duff icy, J.. U.S.EPA

Sitbtrt. 5.. unq >.ittir rt: Ttstinq or Cowouna 1439U Tools

fill SuMary of CoiMnts on *ork Plan

1*2 )?/07/87 Dufficy, j., J.a.EFA

jnart. J.. Citirw '.tttir Fomardinq thi List of OrqanicCoioounds and Nftals RfQuistid Shomnqciactly Mhat Mill Bi Analyztd

143 :7/00/a7 U.S. EPA

141 07/09/87 Rortllt. J.. UnitConstrvancv Dist.

145 07/27/87 Hall. J.. U.S. EPA

i4« u<J/i)0/87 [C.C. Johnson *Assoc.. inc.?]

147 .;•?,22/97 Kazuh. <., 5CAStrvicts

148 '. ' /24/87 atwjtn. «.. Uastldana^Mtnt of NorthAitrica, Inc.

149 07/28/B7 SttfjW, R.. HaittHiiijMiit of NorthAotrica. Inc.

190 10/13/87 Oufficy, J.. U.S.EPA and Alltn. «..GEPA

Public Suotrfund Proqrao Fact Shut: PontllLandfill Siti

Duff icy. J., U.3. Litttr Forvardinf Prootrty flan in thiEPA Vicinity

Forrttt, j., Littir rt: Fact Shtit for tht Pomll RoadO.P.I.C. Landfill Suotrfund Sitt

U.S. EPA Final Hork Plan. POM 11 Road Landfill:Ttchnual Scoot of tfork

Oufficy. J.. J.a. '.ittir rt: RI/FS Analytical Data RtoortinqEPA aM Allm, «..0€PA

0«fficy. J., U.S. Litttr rt: RI/FS Hork Plan, »ith RtvisionsEPA

Oufficy. J.. U.S. Littir Forvardinq TM Cooin of tht FinalEPA RI/FS Hork Plan

roruh. H., 5CA and Litttr rt: Outstanding Issuts Raistd InStttin. R., Hasti Rioards to thi Hork Plan and Backgroundltanat,Mtnt Issun and Pro net Data Acquisition

121

11

anc Q£?A urdir o« Canstflt

.:! ::•,«.r j.3. EPA

<a:uh. K.. 3CA:lfv;:»S

ruellC

:<i:fi:y. i.. -.-.3.

j.3. £.CH to

.ettir ri: •»§• Contr4c:orjng

:r. coordinator i

saniano, f., it al.'..5. E?H

9rO]ict SuiMry: Situiation of itacnattSintration TOI Numcioai Solid Haiti

1:5 ;:.." 3" I:ili. *.. City af «all, J.. J.s. ErA3a»:on

15s i:.74/37 Sullivan, i.. Ohio --all. J.. J.S. ErAauouroan *atir

SCA StmcfS ofOhio, Inc.

SCA 5«mcis ofOhio, inc.

Littir n: i-!'F5 Hort ?ian. »ithCaMtnti troi City or Dayton

.u:,iv.'3S I-aMi I noort

158 v}'OC/3S SaMS 4 Hoor*

to

Littir ri; nl/FS Mork Plan, mth P.noonst toCoMtnti f^ot Ohio Sutoirban Hatir CotoanyHttaehrt

3I Rioort. Vol. 4: Aoofndix C. Hnaiyticaiuata

RI Riport. Vol. 5: Aoomdii C. AnalyticalData

30?

S20

00/00/88 SaMf 4 Hoort

ieO 00'00/aa Dim 4 nooro

lot vZ/OO/SB 'J.s. EPA

ID/38 3aM« 4 Noon

SCA Sfrvicii ofOhio. inc.

SCA Strvien ofOhio. Inc.

Puolic

U.S. EPA

Io3 '):'17^33 luffiCT, J.. U.S. . Kozuh, H., SCAEPA Stnricn of Ohio

lit 02/22/88 Ronlli. I.. HtMi Hall. J.. U.S. EPACOHMTVMCV District

L6S 02/2S/88 JOHN. C.. OCPA Koiuh. H.. 3CA andStifm, R., Haiti

Loo 03/02/88 C;ty of Dayton Public

RI Rioort. Vol. a: AoBtndu C. Analytical 517uata

RI Rioort. vol. 7: Apptndu C. Analytical M5Data

Fact Shttt: PoMll Road Landfill Siti a

Promt Organization: Po«tll Road Lanofill 34RI/FS

Phoni Ricord rt: Additional Uort on tht 1(nttallation of 2-3 Piizotttir Clustin

Littir n: Rnunt for a COPT of thi Comnt 1Ordir 'or RI/F5 Studin flitmtn SCA Sirvicis.U.S. EPA, and tht 3EPA

Littir ri: RI/FS Omonatid Projict 1Coordinator!

Priii Riliaii: 'City of Dayton i Early 3Harninq Ditiction ayttit Proticti DrinkinoHatir Suooiv'

12

:s~ :>: 03<S3 '3:uh. 4.. 5CA jufficy. J.. U.:. T'ansti:tai .etttr ror *I.;F3 Mr?. JAPjervictt ErA and Alien. *.. teiitft t :a'

CEPA

.j5 7 1: s3 .':RI». C.. ;EPA 'oruh. •.. Kii *.gf.'.tr re: iStrvicis

1:« ! :" 33 I'if*::', .'.. j.i. io:un, *.. 5CA ina wSttir re; fro:t« icntoui* * Contrictar•:A ir.o Ailin. ,1.. Sttqin. *.. Nittf Aoprovii

;"' )* 1" :c -a»«. ».. Jr.. j.s. Nitdiro*na. N.. u.3. 1«§o rt: Rtvm or QAPP •:EFA EPA

ri •!*">''i>3a >2H Hill Ohio Suburoan Mtir SroundMtir rrotiction Plin, rh»t i: »fii ov• Co«nny Fitld Evaluation Plan of Action

;": :4M)5/6S «o:uh. «.. 5CA Jonts, C.. aEPA oat vtnt and Flart Rtoair

1" :'4;OS/SB Jintt, C.. CEPA Trnt. i.. 5CA Phoni (lew re ftiviw of QAPP/SAP i5frvicts/»4St(

174 04/11/98 -*all. J.. U.S. EPA Dufficr. 0.. U.S. HIM rt: Caawinity fttUtiont Activttiit 1EPA

1'5 J4/14/B6. Jantt. C.. OEPA StMin. R., Mtsti Litter rt: OEPA Particioation in RI Saioiinq 1Nanaomnt and ActivititiKozuh, U., SCAStrvicti

17& 04/19/88 <o:un, i. and Trtnt, Ouffict, <!.. U.S. . Lttttr rt: RI/'FS Chanot in Ptrtonntl i«.. SCA Strvicts of EPA and Alien, n..Ghio. Inc. OEPA

I" .'4/:a/38 Oufficr, J., U.S. tozuh, K.. SCA and Lttttr rt: U.S. EPA and 0£PA § Counts on 5EPA and Alien, N.. Sttfltn. R., Hastt tht UAPP/SAf. Bodificationi Reouired BeforeGEPA Nanaftttnt Aporoval

178 ')5/05/88 DHffiCTt J.. U.S. Kozuh. M. and Trent, Lttttr rt: Necttiary Nodificationi to tnt aEFA and HUM. N., K.. SCA Strvicn of QAPP/SAP Before AoirovilOEM Ohio. Inc.

179 05/03/98 OEPA. U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA Ttltgnoflt Ntto rt: Clarification of Agtncv 33aw« I Noort. Maitt CoMtnts to the dAPP/SAPiqt. t SCA Strvicts

180 )J/le/BB Oufficy. J.. U.S. IkCulloch, C., Jam Cover Letter for QAPP Sections Froi Another 1EPA t Noort OocuNflt Hhich Clanfitf SOM Ountions

... ;-5:„ ;„,., .,,.111 '!'"

=„„. «,,.,««.»»«•mt« ri: Cantiaumon to Ci*r;r.

Janaqtlfnt, 5CAsonr.

-- '-.v, sg :,„,, 4 noon•3t " " "

T. -!-::.-Sa 3trm. ».. 3CAitrvicti of Ohio.Inc.

•54 -;!;::/3i Tr,nt. « . . : C ASfrvictt Wd?as»no. J.

3CA Stmcis Mwndut No. 1. Htilth 4 Sifit* Plin: PoMil 1

Dufticy. J.. U.S. uittor n: «I/FS Mdinoua co nttitn 4EPA tnd AiiOT. «.. ?1«

4J/31/M v«t, » - . 3 C A:crvicis of Ohio.Inc.

Oufficr, J.. U.I. Lttttr r,: Rl/FS Ch,now in Ptrsonn.i IE?A and Aliw. «..QEPA

Jonw. C.. U.S. EPA Littir Forwrdinq H»* and fttnal Photoqrion, I

,.-,„

IN VOt/96

L» )./l3/9l

190 06/13/88

m 06/13/88

M 06/13/88

.« ^6/20/88

Putlie prm «(H U B Crticl*

4«ri:i. Inc.

Trent. K.. 5CA Oufficy. J.. U.S. L,tt.r r,, RI/FSStrvictJ of Ohio. EPA and Allw. ».. In«UlUtioainc.

Hi. 1 Pmo-tdr

T.«t. K . . 5 C A fcffie». J.. U.I. ttttw r,: Prmtt Mil S«rvW -ork Pl«atrvicis of Ohio. EPA and Allm. N..Inc. 0»»

Tr,nt. L .SCA fanlte. J.. Uw Litttr r.: IU,l».tif OifO«ilSirvicts of Ohio. Conwrvwcy OiftrutInc.>mt 4 HOT. «* SCASrviCMof QAPf Rl - Pnv.t. -11 3«rm -or» PlanE«j« i AMOC. Ohio. Inc.

, J., Jr.. U.S. IMrr l. I.. H.I. Hm r,, Rmw of tn. Phm I RI/FS QAPPEPA EM

Jonn.C.OEPA Tr.1. I.. SCA L.ttdr r.: Pirn* Inst.ll.Uon Prom.1Strvicn of Ohio,Inc.

11

14

:::i • •• • •*•••«•••••••. .1-.ftSLH.r-..«

I****************

sirvicis of Qh:a.Inc.

33 iufficy. J.. 'J.i.s:A «nd JOHN. C..;EPA

C:oc. ».. Ji:/ of .s'.:«r re: tainnatir uiscosai

rrint. '.. aiirvicif JPQFassmo. J..

.ir.r.tr«ori s! *cr

s ;»vi»» orrtcoiitir in

''' 11/33 <al9un. 5..C:iouChio Lao

sirvicis of Ohio,Inc.

i'8 07/:!/3B Trint. K.. 3CAServicis or Ohio,

Siith, B.. CaiouL^it *«« ri: Guantitation at BenzisiniLiO

a.S. Erft ttarmint in Qrair to StudyerounoMCir

U.S. EPA tno GEPA .ittir rt: RI/FS Bmndini Analysis

i« ••7/:3/88 rmdill, K.. U.S.£PA

j)0 07/28/88 fruit, K.. 3CASirvicis of Ohio,Inc.

jji 03/04/38 Jonii. C., 3EPA

>5'04/38 Jonn, C., u

203 08/05/88 Jonn. C., OEP*

:04 08/22/88 TrMt. K.. SCAStrvictt of Ohio,Inc.

205 08/22/88 Trwt, K., SCAairvicif of Ohio.Inc.

t. ". and Jonts.C., OEPA

U.S. EPA and OEPA

SCA Sirvi cu. UastilanaoHWt of tt.•Africa. U.S. EPA

Tindail. K., U.S.EPA aM TrMt, K..SCA Siry i CM

Tnnt. K., SCASirvicii of Ohio.Inc.

U.S. EPA and OEPA

Jonis, C., OEPA andHannahs, R., U.S.EPA

:0o 03/29/88 Sadzmcz. J.. OEPA OoMinq. R.

"•to n: Omanation of KM Tindali as tniftintdiai Projict Nanagir

Littir Forwarding a Rinrt rrioarid by EagonI Assoc. Entitlid, 'Existing Hydrooiology and<atir Quality*

Littir n: RI/FS Changi OEPA Projictrirsonnii, Nark AllM Kill Bi DisionatM astht Altirnati Projict Coordinator for OEPA

uittir n: Risidmtial Mil Surviy Littir ofIntroduction

Littir '•: Risidifltiai tail Surviy Littir ofIntroduction

Littir ri: Kathy Trtnt. Promt CoordinatorShould bi Rnlacid Hith JaM« Forniy andKathy TrMt Hill Rulaci Jiff Passmo AsAltirnati Projict Coordinator

Littir ri: RI/FS Haslwatir Plan Aooroval

Littir Forwarding tin OEPA Pirnt to Install

15

S3*******

:3/30/38 Satts 4 Noore :CA Services ofOhio. Inc.

EieroencY ^e«tonse run. including fltos ana

.'i; 31.38 jjttt 4 Roore. 3CAServices, setcan *t:dy. JEPA. u.s. EPA

eieonone *«io c: '.jn Terence .ii. -*: »i?aii:int ><aency ilatttntj to 'jnrp jno :«fJocutenc*

Sice visit ano tne Furoose of tre i*eetma

in

Jines, C.. 2EFA andTindail. '.. U.S.

J9/08/88 Jores. C.. 2EPA andTindail, K.. d.5.•PA

'12/58 Jones. C.. 3EPA

219

09/20/88 Forney. J.. SCA -Services a: Ohio,Inc.

0«''22/63 Sates 4 Hoort

09/22;98 Sates 4 Roore

09/22/88 Dates 4 Noore

09/26/88 Jones. C.. OEPA

•)9/28/B8 Dam I Noore

10/07/83 Saiver. A., City ofDayton

10 .'17 '88 3*tes 4 Noort

Vent, <., SCAServices andrasstno, J.. KasteRanaoetent

Trent, K.. SCAServices and;asseno. J., MasteRanaqnent

forney. J.. tasteNanaotttnt andTrent. K., SCAServices

U.S. EPA and GEPA

SCA Services ofOhio. Inc.



Forney, J. andTrent. X.. SCAServices


Zilli, M.

SCA Services ofOhio, Inc.

Letter re: QAPP and SAP Aooroval

U.S. EPA 4 OEPA'i Cotelttet Review ot theFirst Revision of tht 9APP ant SAP

I!

uttter re: Residential Hell Survey rlan 3Proposal to/13/88 aubtittal)

Letter Forurtint tht Final Revisions of tne 2QAPf, SAP. and HASP

Health 4 Safety Plan I9i

QAff RI. Vol. 1 of 3 100

3APP HI, Vol. 2 of 3 (Appendices B 4 C) <56

Letter re: U.S. EPA and OEPA's Cettents on 2the Existino Hydroqeoloty ant ttter QualityDili

QAPf ft!, Vol. 3 of 3 (Appendices 0 - r) 149

Aqreetent Bttneet the City of Dayton and SCA 11Services Relating to Sround Mater Nonitorino

Technical Rttorandut, Tasks 20 and 21: 19Surficial Soil and Sutsurficial Soil SatoUnoind Analysis

;"* !-"£ ••/•iCR :E"Ir!ENT:::x :»> :»»*«» :»*«**»

221 lv/Ia.59 3utf * Hoort 5CA Semen or "«cnntci: letoranaut. T«si in; AtoientOhio. in:. luali tr in

:: :? •? ::ndall. K.. u.3. :ernev. j.. «aste ^eview C;Mtnts :n fecono 'evtsisn or 3APP•rA "iniflMtPr. in:.

=Cft atrvicts :• recrnic*l .rworarom. "«si 3: Cac integrityOhio, in:.

:i.:;,-33 Fsrnt*. j.. *»»t» J.S. £?fi ana CirA ^ttttr fomaroinq tnt RtJiotntiai *tli 5urv»»tinaantnt :f North R«oort rhat Hat ?ttn Prtotrto far :CA

a. inc. Services af Ohio or Eaqon MMOC. fcr

11* li/Z?'36 "moili. «... j.3. rornt*. J. and Lttttr rt: Recurring Probitf of Deviations IEFA and Jonts. :., rrent. K.. tttit 'rot the rRL iJAPP]£?» tanaqtMfit of lorth

Aitnca

:ia I!, -<7.86 Corner, j.. *aitt Tmoali. '.. J.S. ^etttr re: ftesponst to 11/15/86 Lttttr 13tanaotNflt of Nortn crA Conctrninq CaiMnci on tnt Stcond Revision of"ttrica, inc. tht SAPP, ntn Coutnts

227 i:/15/88 "inoail. »'.. U.S. -orner. J.. Mastt tetter re: Residential Water Survey and 1£PA and Jonts. C.. Niniqittnt of north KecoMwdtd SatBiinq SittsGEPA Actrici. Inc.

::8 ::/::;38 Trent. K.. **ste U.S. EPA and OEPA Lttttr rt: Notice of Addrtss Chanqt for lNanaqtttnt of North Hathryn Trent. Alternate Project Banaqtr forAttnca. Inc. tht RI/'FS

229 12:'23,98 Forney. J., Hastt 'indall. t.. U.S. Covtr Letttr For Atrial Photos That SCA 2Nanagmnt of North EPA and Jonts, C., Strvices Obtained Frot. Coll insHttrica. Inc. OEPA Saddltr t Assoc.

:*0 u(>.- 00/39 Jones. C.. QEPA and Trent. K. and U.S. EPA and OEPA's CoMmts to ftevjjion 1 of 13T indall, K., U.S. Passtno. J.. Hastt tnt OAPP£PA NmiqtMflt of Nortn

Attfica

231 01/23/89 Alln. «., 0£PA Fornty. J.. Nastt Lttttr for»ardinq tht 3/2/72HanaqtMnt of North Constrvancy District CorresoonatnctANTIU, Inc.

232 01/24/89 Fonwr, J.. SCA U.S. EPA and OEPA Lttttr rt: tht Stcond Round of SroundiattrStrvicn of Ohio. Saaplinq and Chanqt to tht Overall RI/F5Inc. Schedule

233 02/23/89 Forney. J.. Mastt U.S. EPA and OEPA Lttttr rt: tht First Round Analytical Remitsnanaqtttnt of NorthAttnca. Inc.

17

:iz»«zx*zzzzzsz«

::4 •>: jO'39 *.naaii. *.. J.j.E?A and Bower. 3.JEPA

fornti. ;..•anaofMnt 3'

.ittir rt; u.s. EPA ane GEPA j wit* or tniCsni'.jr teli -valuation ano

tiai nil iRvmiqation. «itn NOCoieents

.: -•.:.-•«« ilien. «.. 2EPAErA

'. j.. M«t*i: OT Nortn EFA

••inca. Ire.

. «.. u.s.

>.. J.5.

EPA

::a :•:.-• i:/a? -n«n.«.. OEPA

140

141

Z43

2*4

245

03/17/39 T:sdill. <.. U.S.EFA and Alien. 1..GEPA

*ina»li. K.. J.5.£PA «nCEPA

04/06/89 T:ndall. K.. U.S.ErA

04/07/89 Fernev. J.. HasteXanaeeeent of NorthAterica, Inc.

04/20/99 Tietell, K., U.S.EM

05/00/89 Tindall. K.. U.S.EPA and Sorter, S.,OEPA

, j.. ttttttIfMiotMfit of NorthAttrica. Inc.

Fornt«, J.. 3CAacrvtctf andrindall. I.. U.S.EPA

Fornty. J.. ilasttNaflawunt of NorthAitrica. Inc.

J.5. EPA

Forntr, J.. *a»ttRanaqtMnt of NorthAatrtca. Inc.

Forney. J.. MuteHanamtnt of NorthAcerica. Inc.

.sctir ?3r»arainq a COOY o* Da»tcn $lull North wli ?:tia Ervironwntai >»tincano Dtvtiooaent Prsqraa4 Dacts 1'38

Cover Litter *or tne SaMte Cata FaciaaeiThat 5CA Strvicit ^iceivee Froe CoeouCneeLaooratorm on the SMiaential UeiiTask

Litter rt: rtooroval of SAPP *or PRP itaoPhase I RI/FS Activity

Litter re Bomui ionker ai the Nev OEPAHiternate rroiect Coordinator

Letter re: U.S. EPA and OEPA i Oetereinationtan the Hodificitioni to the Second RoundSroundMter Saeeline Plan Proooul

Cover Letter nth 3/24/89 Incident Reoort

Litter re: Proposed Trenching./Teft ritActivities

Letter Fomardinq the U.S. EPA Cfll DataReview Contents for the- Oreanic Portion ofthe Ha» Data Packaeei Submitted

U.S. EPA and OEPA Letter re: RI/FS Chanqe in Personnel

Fomey, J.. Hastenanaatttot of NorthAeerica, Inc.

Forney, J.. WasteHanaoeeent of NorthAeerica, Inc.

Letter ForMrdine the Rieaininq U.S. EPA CRLCoeeenti oe the Data Packaoes SubeittH

Letter re: U.S. EPA and OEPA's Coe nts onthe Source Characterization TM

13

." e •-365

•5/08:-59 Farnty. j.. Hastt'Hanattttnt of *tartiAttrica. IRC.

j.:. E?A .ecter ?ir»arainq :ne r'eueinar» iiurci!'aracter':ation *ecort. £mu?o »3«ucr•«ii Evaluation ;»c"nicil 1«ior»r,o i. *P3 :*e:esident:ai «ater i-vesti:at;3? Te:ini:ai"ewanout

inc.

-..:. E?H in6 Ot- I:xir Litti'' t:'1 tie 1. 5 iiUM':«dmnt i jurfjci tatf.

3at liaration

o

-,5.::.' 39 * 'oort

5CA airvicH srOhio. Inc.

itA Strvicts ofOhio. Inc.

:tcmucal itatoranoui. fast J: nInvMtiqatian

Technical Rtiorandui. Task 9: aa$ Niarition

Ob/ 21/69

:5i 'j7.. OS/89

4 Roori

eonktr. 9. andAlico, 1.. 3EPA

SCA Scrvicii atOhio, Inc.

Forntr, J.. SCASirvicM anoTinaall, K.. U.S.£PA

Tfchnical nttoranaui. Tasks 12 ano 23:Stdiitnt and Surf act Nttr Saaotinq anoAnalysis

Littir rt: Chanqi of GCPA ProjectCoordinators

11

J8/10/89

255 08/13/89

Tindall. ».. U.S.E?A

Fornty, J.. riasti1»naqe«tnt of NorthAterica. Inc.

. j.. Mastlnanaontflt of NorthAttrica. Inc.

Ltininqfr. R.. HasttAaniftMftt of NorthAocrica. Inc.

Forney. j., HastelanaqtMnt of NorthAawrica. Inc.

U.S. EPA and OEPA

•J.S. EPA and OEPA

RtviM of tht Niatx North toll Field rutoTests

Letter Fornardinq tht HydroqtolooicInvtstiaition Technical ftMorandiu

Letter Fomaroinq tht Surficial andsub-Surficial Soil Saawlinq ano Analysis H«O-itflt Air duality Investigation ifetoranda

25i 08/29/W

08/31/89

Borttr. R.. OEPA andTindall. K.. U.S.EPA

Tindall. K.. U.S.EPA and Bonktr. 8...CEPA

AshMrth. J.. Ltttir rt: Rtsoonst to tht InfortationRtsource Aoohcatio- Request. Mhich «as Sent to Haste ftanaqntntn* of North Attrica. Inc.: SCA Services Aqretd

to Conduct tht ftl/FS

Forney. j., Haste letter rt: OEPA and U.S. EPA's CoMtnts onffanattMnt of North tht Cat Inteqrity. Surfact Mattr'Sedittnt.Attrica. Inc. Radioloqical. and 6as Hiqrauon Reoorts

Forney. J.. Hastt Letter rt: U.S. EPA and OEPA's Cotomts onHanaqHtnt of North tht ttydroqtoioqic Investiqation TechnicalAttrica. Inc. Hetoranflut Received on 8/3/89

19

I?3 ' •:•'")§/ 89 Tiflflail, *.. J.3. *3rnt». J.. Mitt 1.1 ttf »•«: u.S. s?4 jna UC?H 1 win 3* '"* »£?A ana »omr. ;.. 'Jn*oi«n'. :• rs'th ;-»i:iir«r« -curci >:r.«rictiri:ttiopJEPA -Mrtci. ir:.

»;an:« .*:tir« -r'mraK t3 nr« Li'.::ms or >««;iicn. «.. OEPA C;t;:tn§ -inantJ ;fqiraina APiimcii s«ult» sf

•aoiii CaiitctM Froo Thfir Olis Jurna tnt•Mi of i: 4(83. ?*rt of tH« SI

liO 0«.;il/89 *::dill, n., J.S. rorntr, J., *«ti ^ittir '»: U.S. £P* »nt OErft'i Stviw of tut 1tPft tnt 3a«kir. i.. r>M4qniftt of North Extstinq tauter Mtil £v*iu«tion tutCEPA ANri:i. Inc. Smdwtiil Uittr InvMtiHtion: No CoMtntf

t»rt StniritM

Is! ••'•12/39 fornw, a.. sCA I'mdiil. I., U.S. Lttttr rt: RI/FS Entwuon of RI Semouli iStrvicci of Ohio. EPA and Bonktr, 3..inc. OEPA

13: n.-2«"0 Tindall. K.. U.S. Fornt?. J.. »«ti U.S. ErA me QEPA'j CoMtflts on tht Draft RI IBEPA tnd Bonkir. 3.. flanaoMMt of Nortn R«oortCEPA

;a3 03/19/90 Cannair. 0. and SCA Simcis of Littir rts Rtfotution of PW. IIMN Discuistd 2EdMrdi. 5.. OaMf * Ohio. Inc. at tht 3/12/90 Aot»CT NtttinfNoort

Za4 03/30/90 rgrntt. J.. Naitt Tindall. K.. U.S. Covtr Lftttr for R! Rwort 1!fanaqtttnt of North EPA and Bmktr. B. iHiirtca Oavidson. K.. OEPA

;85 ')6/07/90 Zilli. »., Dayton « Hinston. r.. OEPA RtquMt for COOT of Ntv Draft of tht Ri IStpt. of riattr Rtoort

Zad Oa/07/90 Borttr. 8.. OEP* Zilli. N.. OavtOt I Rwoonit to 6/7/90 Lttttf iOttt. of Hattr

2a7 07/24/90 BoNktr. B.. OEPA and Form. J.. »a«ti U.S. EPA and OEPA'! CoMtnti on tht Rtvistd 12Tindall, K., U.S. Hanattttnt of North R! RtportEPA Attfica

268 07/25/90 Tinfcll, K., U.S. Fifhtr. J.. «iai Lttttr rts tht Coalition i Hydro 4EN art Iwltr. I.. Vallty Landfill loo SuNtttioni for Additional MtllfOEM Coalition

269 08/28/90 Forntr, J., Uaitt Tindall. «.. U.S. Lttttr rt: Aftncm Htttint rt: tht RI 2RanaqttMt of North EPA and Sibboni. A.. RtoortAttrica. Inc. Davidson, K., 3EPA

20

1*0 •5/I3't') Pornty, j«. Hastt T;noall. i.. j.5. tart Plan Atenotent for tne riJanaqetent of North ErA in a sibocns. A.. ;-»«u3itionAttrica. Inc. Jivioson. >... :£SA

I"! ' ' • • ! : ?•:• ?:rntr. j., imt «arsn*li. ;.. j£?A .sttir re: ;u« l»iintin*nc«of North

i, inc .

172 •S'lo/'O Siooonj, A.. QtrA rorniy, j., »*$ti j.S. ErA ing OEP4 s Coutnti en tnt nn ?l*nino "inaill. K.. HiniqtMnt of *lorth<j.5. Erfi AMrui, Inc.

I*; ;:, 07/70 Jgnii. v., U.S. ERA kiily. J.. O.S. c?A Aoorov*! ind Copy of thi First =evi§ion QM-for Ovtrfight on tht rRP's RI/FS H

274 ii.:o/?0 jiDOons. A.. QEPA Porniy, J.. N«stt uttir rt: Suohna Procidurtsof North

. Inc.

1Z. •:'*<*•} ?orn»». j.. 4<$tf Stbbons, A.. GErA Rfsoonit to ll/26/'0 Lttttr on the Siioiinqof North Procidurts

, Inc.

I7a )i.:)0/<'l :;u. j., Suflita. U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Suidinci. 'Ground K*tir Istut: 12j.. Ruiutl. H.. Rtductivt 0»h*loq«ntion of Organic'j.5. EPA Cont«in*nti in Soils and Ground dattr*

177 >l/:4/?i Kern, I., riistt Tindill. K., U.S. Littir rt: Rtsuolinq of Nonitorinq Ntlls <no 3nanaotmt of North EPA and Sibbons, A., Risidintial HellsAtflrica. Inc. Oavidson. X., OEPA

:~3 :l,:!''l Razn. A., Eaqon i <tm. T.. Haste Littir rt: Nil Dtvtloottnt for Third Round 5Atsociatts. Inc. Banaqttwt of North Rtsanlinq

Aetrica. Inc.

279 :>:,14/9l Tindall. X.. U.S. Ktrn, T.. Mastt U.S. EPA and OEPA'i CoMtnti on tht PRl 4EPA and Gibbons, A.. Nanaqttfnt of North Alttrnativts Array3EPA Actrica. Inc.

:90 15/03/91 Urn, T.. Hasti Tindall. X., U.S. T«twical Ntforandui: H«droqtoloqic 124ItaMfHMt of North EPA and Sibtons, A. InvntiqationAMTIU t Davidson. K.. OEPA

2B1 05/16/91 SibbOMt, A.. OEPA Kaiins. S. Covtr Littir for SaMii Rtsults 1

292 06/00/91 U.S. EPA Public Proqrtss fttoort «

293 Ob/17/91 Sibbons, A., OEPA Fishtr, J., Niaii Covtr Lettir for Suilinq Round 4 Rtiults LVallty LandfillCoalition

•*5c::s:i»

134 06/')0/?l Huts 4 Soore :CA Scrvicts of *i Rioort. -:i. 3: -ooenau C. Hnai«f.i:aiOhio. inc. }«ta

liS :-i''l»''l «fr», T.. 4aste Unoall. >.. •:.:. ":vir .e'.'.ir 'cr t«e Revised ?• *tsar:"inaHtftt of Mortn £.:A ml itooont. 4..-uric* Divioson. «. . 3EPA

?ilt Htttinq List *or ?BU fittino in Chicaoo

1:7 '.: v4/ ; l jisboni. H.. j£PA 'orner, J.. riaiti CamntJ on tnt Auqust i"i RIVIIM «I s»oort Vinn Tindaii. <., lanaoMWt of Northtj.3. Erfl

Sl»

o

158 11 ::/9l '.-dill. K., J.3. ?orntv, J.. Mastc Revisions to the Baseline Risk lissesseente:A «nd 3i9bons. A., 1in«ge«nt of NorthJEPA Aeerica

13' 1M7/71 rornev. J.. Maste *indall, K.. J.a. Cover Letter for the Revised SI Reportl»n*atf«nt of North EPA ind Sibbons. A.,•item* Davidson. K., OEPA

290 C-Z/00/': Sites t Koore SCA Services of RI Reoort, Vol. i: Report Teit. Tables *noOhio. Inc. Fiaures

:91 >):/00/92 latei i Itaore SCA Services of RI Report, Vol. 2: AttwdicnOhio. inc.

:?: 02/10/92 Tmdall. K.. U.S. Forner, J.. Haste Revision and CoMMtsw the 12/91 Revised R IEPA «no Sibbons. A.. Nanaqetent of North ReeortGEPA AMrica

Z<>3 OZ'24/92 Sibbons, A., OEPA Forner, J.. Haste U.S. EPA and OCPA's Request That Haste 1tnq Bartiett. J.. Naaaqetent of North Hanaaetent Satple Residential HellsU.S. EPA AMrica. Inc.

194 02/27/92 Forner, J., Hastt Tindall. K.. U.S. Cover tetter for the Revised RI Report 1flanaqttent of North EPA and Sibbons. A.,Aeerica OEPA

:9S 03/11/92 Tindall, K., U.S. Foriiev, J.. Haste Letter Indicating That the RI Report Has Been IEPA a*d Bibeons. A.. Hanaoeeent of North Oeeacd FinalOEM Aetrica

296 03/31/92 Tiotell, K.. U.S. Forney, J.. Haste Letter re: Change of Reetdial Project danafer 1EPA • Hfl.t. and Sibbons,

A.. OEPA

:97 04/17/92 Bartiett. J., U.S. Forney, J.. Haste Request 'or Addenda! to the Initial Screening 3EPA and Sibbons, A., nanaqeeent of North Neeorandue.OEPA AMrica

22

asaaaaaaa :*aaaaaaaaa*sx*x»

:»S .M3/'2 *VIC Public -atroa for ^L: ?uol:c Btttini ntH M3'?:

"sue.-?2 Sartlttt. J., ».5. Fantr, 1.. *«'.f :tnM or :-i initial icrjtnma flttorandui£?A and Siboonj. A.. Niaanint :r NjrtnJEPA

lir'it'.l. J.. J.5. Fonw. J.. Mistt -ortitionai Caittnt! 3n tit ln:t:ii ::r«nmai:- fa aiDCons. 4.. 1in*a«int cf Nort.i "eiorinduiOEPA

/:!.'1'? Forn««, j.. Xtitt Sirtlttt. J.. 'j.3. ^tsoonu to CsiMnti on t!ti Drift F3 ?bPiniatifnt of North ErA *nd Sibbons. A..

OEPA

D2 vc'':3/T2 shtlltr. *., Ohio 5*rtlitt. J.. U.S. ifttir rt: Hvntibility ot tnt Public HtilthDent, af Ktilth EPA

:•:<' iO'OO/92 Ohio Diot. of Hfilth ruolic Htilth AtinuMt RtviM *

'04 11/02/9: jibbont. A., OEPA ?ornty. J.. Nistt Joint Aqtncv CoMMti on tht Draft FS edand 9*rtlitt. L. «*n«tttnt of North'J.5. EPA Attric*

TO) -11/18/92 oibboni, A.. OEPA Shtllir. T., Ohio RiviM of tht Hftlth AittUNflt 4Dnt. of Hulth

306 Li, i9''2 Trividi. 5.. 3ut< k B«rtlttt. J.. U.S. Risooflit to CoMmti on tht Draft FS 5foort EPA

307 11/24/92 U.S. EFA Fill flitting Lift 1

308 12/00/92 DaM$ i Noon 3CA Sirvicis of Fusibility Rioort 304Ohio. Inc.

709 :~.i<>~ 1*1 Forniy. J., Hntt Bartiitt. J.. U.S. RotfificaUons to tht AlUmativn List 7NanaqtMflt of North EPA and Sibboni. A..Aitrica OEPA

310 12/31/92 Fomrr, J., Hutt Bartlttt. J.. U.S. RtiOMM to Swtral CoMMtt on tht Draft F3 2)NaMtMNt of North EPA *nd 6ibbon«. A..AMrica OEPA

311 03/02/93 Sifefem, B., QEPA Fornty, J., Na*ti OEPA antf U.S. EPA'i CoMMts on tnt PRL 7u* lartlttt. J.. Ra*.aiM*t of North RtvitN FS RiportU.S. EPA AMTIU

312 '75/03/93 rarniy. J.. Nattt Bartlttt. J., U.S. Litttr rt: SCA'f Aormtflt to Suoll Six 4nanaqiNflt of North EPA and Sibbont. A.. Rmdtntial UttlsAitrica. Inc. OEPA

23

?irti«tt. ?r?Mi. v. lovtr

24

U.S. EPA ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDPOWEU. ROAD LANDFILL SITE

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIOUPDATE ttl09/17/93

OKI DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES:aaa :saa :xxaaa xsaaaaaaa :aaaaaaaasaaaaaaa saaaa

1 04/13/93 rornty, J., Haiti Bartlttt, J., U.S. SroundMttr Analytical Rnults 7Nanaatttnt of North EPA and 61boons, A.,AMrica, Inc. OhioEPA

2 04/22/93 Ohio HpartMnt of U.S. EM Public HNlth Asstsstttt NHulth and ATSM

3 04/22/93 Sibbons, A., ObioEPA RNidMti Rtsidtttial Htll Sattlitt, Rtwlts IS

4 OJ/00/93 U.S. EPA Public Fact Shttts 'U.S. EPA RtcoMMdf Clianup 10Plan*

5 OS/04/93 gibbons, A., OhioEPA Forntv, J.. Hastt Violin? Rtwlts of Rtsidtntial Nils Sac«ltd 12RMattttnt of North on March lif 1993 and April H, 1993Attrica, Inc.

6 06/02/93 ihati Vallty U.S. EPA itiati Vallty Landfill CoalitiM's CoMMts 1Landfill Coalition nt tht Propostd Plan

7 06/02/93 Schuttt, C. U.S. EPA Transcript of tht tat 2, 1993 Public NtttiM. 93for tht Propostd Plat

8 06/03/93 Ifontoottry, 6. U.S. EPA Citiztt's CottMts M tht Protest* Plat 1

9 06/03/93 Brincktao, J., Public Nmpaptr Articlt: 'Sroupj Ludfill Cltamip IDayton Daily Nm Plat Itay Net Prottct Vattf Ntlls*

10 06/04/93 Cahill. J. U.S. EPA Citiztn'. Cotttnts on tht Propostd Plan 1

11 06/08/93 Brincktan, J., Public NMtpap" Articlt: 'EPA T.rttU Pontll Road 1Dayton laily Nws Landfill Ustrs*

12 06/14/93 Marmot, J., Ohio Kitftrttfh, 0.. U.S. Ohio Suburban Hattr Cotpany's Cotttnts on tht 2Svburbat Hattr EPA Propostd PlatCotpatr

13 06/17/93 Hayoat, I., Folltr i ritbrwft, 0., U.S. Stntral Motors Corporation's RNvtst for at 3Htnrr EPA Eitttsion of tht Cotttnt Ptriod on tht

Proptstd Plan Through July 19, 1993

14 06/17/93 Barriball, T. and rittroMth, D., U.S. Niati Vallty Landfill Coalition's Cotttnts on 36rnt, RM EPA tht Propostd PlanFuoro-flcClilland

15 06/21/93 Sarypit, C., U.S. Haynat, 0., Fulltr I Litttr rt: U.S. EPA'i Eittnsion of tht Public 1EPA Httry Cotttnt Ptriod for tht Propostd Plan Through

iuiy 9, 1993

3CCI OAFE AUTHOR ftECIPlEXT nTLE/KSCRIPriON PA6CS

16 06/22/93 Tomtnd. P., Him Valltr Hydroqto»oo,ic CoiMitti on tht HI and FS 30Hydro-Lot, landfill Coalition

17 06/23/93 U.S. EPft Public DIM flili.M: 'EPA Annovncn Eitwuon of 2Pott 11 ftoid Public CoiMdt Ptnod*

IB 06/30/93 Forntr, J. *nd Kitbrouqh, D., U.S. SCA Strvun of Ohio's CaMMtl on tht 60Ltiningtr, R., tfattt CPA Propottd Plan, >ith AttictutfltsNqt. of NorthAMnca

19 07/09/93 Har«M, D.. Fulltr I Kitbrou^h, 0., U.S. fitnrii Itotors Corporation I CoMMti on tht 4Htnry EN Protostd Plu

20 07/09/93 lartlttt. J., U.S. Fornty, J., Mutt Lttttr nj CoMtnti on tbt PropOHd NM 1EPA Ifanaqttnt of

Attrica, Inc.

II ?3/23/93 Bartlttt, J.. U.S. Rttidtnts Litttr to Rtfidtnts rt: Quality of Vattr in 3EPA and Gibbons, A., Privatt HtlliOhioCPA

U.S. EPA ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDPOWELL ROAD LANDFILL SITEMONTGOMERY COUNTY. OHIO

UPDATE #2O9/29/93

•[TLE/DE5CRIPTICNS33SS3338

1 vo/29/90 nrnett. *. and Aivey, N.. OhioShuio, n.. CH2H Hill Suouroan dater

Csepany

: .17/24/92 City of Dayton OhioEPA

ii/06/93 Bcvtryn, S., OhioEPA OhioEPA

si24/93 ;ciirtoaraus, 3..IhioEFA

!:ty Nanaper, Cityof Dayton

: :a/l!/93 sarlett. J.. U.S. Duiouchtllt, 3..EPA U.S. EPA

6 08/30/93 =jrtl«tt. J., U.S. FiltEPA

Draft Tichnicai NtMrandui re: Travel *i.ieAnalysis

jeneral Plan for the Phased OevtlooMftt ofthe City of Dayton *io Sao Road Hell Field

Seoort on the Seneral Plan for the PhasedDevelODMflt of the Citr of Dayton Rig RaoRoad Hell Field

Letter re: the Cm of Day ton s General Flansof Phased Development of the Rio Rao nUell Field

Letter re: ground Hater Issues

NeMrandui re: PRL Ground Mater Issues

PA6ESX3333

13

:o

10

7 09/22/93 Alien, rt. and Barlett. J.. U.S.Gibbons, A.. OhioEPA EPA

3 09/22/93 Bartlett. J., U.S. FiltEPA

; 07/23/93 Hindall, Stevcn, Barlett. J.. U.S.U.S. 001 EPA

Facsmle of OhioEPA's InterQffici Coe«iflication re: SCA ServicesCoutnts on the Proooud Plan

Netflrandut. re: thf Auaust 24 and 27. 1993Neetinq mth OhioEPA

Letter re: the U.S. Geological Survey §Technical Assistance on HydroqeologicalIssues

r. 01

P.O. HM1049.1100 WttNttaifc Or.CdwnbM. ONo 489V014I(•<4)t44.303Q

by d to trancmrttol oiomo 7071 [•«»•««• »,{L^>l^i» IFrw* A' * i "''—

Smt«rib«r 30, 1993 RBl POWELL ROAD LANDP110,MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIORECORD OP DBC1S10W

Mr. Valdun V.Regional AdmilTietratorU.S. EPA, Region V77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, Illinois 6U6U4

Mr. Adamkua:Ohio EVA has received and reviewed the Record of Decision (ROD)

for the Powell Road Landfill (PRL) Superfund site in MontgomeryCounty, Ohio. Ohio £*>A concure with the selection of Alternative4 for remedial action at this site. The selected remedial actionpresented in the ROD differe from the preferred remedialalternative outlined in the proposed plan. The selected remedialaction. Alternative 4, includes the following ooa^onanta:

- institutional control*;inprovad landfill cap with linar;

•in- axcavation of contanlnatad aoila;- conaolidation of axcavatad aoila undar landfill cap;- ground watar monitoring;- flood protection;- atom vatar controls;- activa landfill gaa collaction with flara;- laachata axtraction;- on-aita laachata treataant;- axtraction of ground watar from tha shallow aquifar

adjacant to too) landfill;- on»sita ground watar traatmant;- discharge of traatad ground watar and l«»rhat» to tha

rivar.Eatiaatad present worth cost of this raaadial action is $20.51•illion. Estimated coat of operation and maintenance for thisremedial action is $44,000 per year.Specifics of the remedial action such as the exact number andlocation of qround water extract Inn «nd monitoring valla, laaehataaxtraction walla, and gas extraction wells, as well as tha amountaof media to be extracted and t.r*at«d will be determined in theremedial design. The leachata extraction aystam will be designedto create a alight influv of ground watar into the landfill.

r.

Xr. valdua V. AdaokuaPage 2Languaga la tha ROD alao indicates that, should a connactioa avarba found batwaan PRL and tha araa of contamination Vnown aa thaNaadaora Road oluaa, aithar a ROD anandnant' or an Explanation ofSignificant Diffarancaa trill ba praparad AM appropriata.Ohio SPA baliavea that tha aa1.act.ad raaadlal Art.frm for Prn*»1l RoadLandfill providat tha bait balanca among tha altacnativaa whanavaluatad againat tha nina crltarla aat forth In tha nationalContingancy Plan, 40 CTR, Part 300.430.Sine

r-Di«tributiont Jan CarIcon, Xebing Chiaf, DBRR

Janifar Xwasniawaki, Saction Hangar, T6PS8, DBRRCatharina ttroup, I*agalr Ohio IPAAw Gibbona, SWDO, DBRRJaff Hinaa, SWDO, DRRRJan Bartlatt, fan, U.S. B9AJoa Duffley, OH/MM Branch, U.S. BPA

sdms us epa region v -1epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/remedial/docs/dd/powell rd landfill rod.pdf ·...

Documents