Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Lackawanna Refuse EPA ID ... · Fourth Five-Year Review Report for Lackawanna Refuse Superfund Site Old Forge, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania (Deleted

Fourth Five-Year Review Report

for

Lackawanna Refuse Superfund Site

Old Forge, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania (Deleted 1999)

EPA ID#: PAD980508667

June 2009

Prepared By: Environmental Protection Agency

Region III Philadelphia, PA

, ,

Date:

Kat n A. Hodgkiss, A in Director Hazardous ,Site Cleanup lvision EPA, Region III

Lackawanna Refuse Five-Year Review June 2009

Table of Contents F~urth Five Year Review


List of Acronyms ; 4

Executive Summary ; 5

Five-Year Review Summary Form 6

I. Introduction : ~ : ~. 9

II. Site .Chronology 10

III. Background ~ 11 Physical Characteristics , ; ,.. ; 11 Land and Resource Use , 12 History of Contamination ; 12 Basis for Taking Action 13 Contaminants ~ ~ 14

IV. Remedial Actions .....................................................................•.............................14 Remedy Selection : 14 Remedy Implementation : 15· Final Inspection · , ; : 16 Explanation of Significant Difference , 16 Remedial Action Complete · 16 System Operation/Operation and Maintenance : 16

V. Progress Since La'st Five Year Review : :~ :'. 17

VI. Five Year Review Process 19 Administrative Components : 19 Community Notification'and Involvement 20 Document Review ~ 20 Data Review :.. : , 20

. Site Inspection ,' 21 Interviews " 21

. VII. Technical Assessment. ~ 21

time of the remedy still valid?

protectiveness of the remedy? Technical Assessment Summary

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the·

2 .

Lackawanna Refuse Five-'Year Review June 2009

VIII. Issues ~ ' :23

IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 25

X. Protectiveness Statement 27

XI. Next Review : I .

27 .

,Tables Table I - Chronology of Site Events Table 2 - Detected Contaminants Table 3 - Actions Taken Since Last Five-Year Review~ Table 4 - Monitoring Well MCL Exceedances Table 5 - Issues Table 6 - Recommendations and Follow-up Actions :

'

: :

10 14 19 20 24 26

Figures Figure 1- Site Map

Attachments Attachment 1 - Site Inspection and Evaluation Report

, Attachment 2 - Revised Operation and Maintenance Plan Attachment 3 - List of Documents Reviewed Attachment 4 - PA DEP Operation and Maintenance Inspection Checklists Attachment 5 - PA DEP Monitoring Well Analytical Results Attachment 6 - PA DEP 512 Order Attachment 7 - Public Notice of Five Year Review Tear Sheet

\

3


List of Acronyms

ARARs ATV BTAG CERCLA

COC EPA. ERT ESD GMUC GPRA HEUC LEL MCL MIBK NCP

NEIC NPL O&M OSWER PADEP PADER RA RAMP RAO RBC RCRA RIfFS ROD RPM SARA SWRAU TCE USACE

Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements All-Terrain Vehicle Biological Technical Assistance Group Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Contaminant of Concern Environmental Protection· Agency Environmental Response Team Explanation of Significant Differences Groundwater Migration Under Control Government Performance and Results Act Human Exposure Under Control Lower Explosive Limit Maximum Contaminant Level Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Enforcement Investigations Center National Priorities List Operations and Maintenance Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection· Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Remedial Action Remedial Action Master Plan . Remedial Action Objective. Risk-Based Concentration

l .

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Record of Decision Remedial Project Manager Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use Trichloroethene U.S. ArmyCorps·of ~ngineers

4


Executive Summary

The remedy for the Lackawanna Refuse included removal of contaminated soils and debris, installation of a landfill cap and monitoring of groundwater, landfill gas and leachate. The Site was deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1999. The trigger for this Five-Year Review was the completion of the Third Five-Year Review on June 10, 2004.

The assessment of this Five-Year Review found that the remedy for the Site currently protects human health and the environment. However, significant issues regarding the maintenance of the landfill cap, recent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and freshwater screening benchmarks, and reporting should be addressed as soon as practicable to order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term.

5

Lackawanna Refuse Five-Year Review June 2009,

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name: Lackawanna Refuse

EPA ID: PAD980508667

Review period:**August, 2008 - June 2009

Date(s) of site inspection: 11/6/08

Type of review: IJ Post-SARA ,/ Pre-SARA IJ NPL-Remov<il only IJ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site IJ NPL State/Tribt}-Iead

. Q Regional Discretion

Revie'W number: Q I (first) Q 2 (second) o3 (third) ( Other(specify): 4 (fourth)

Triggering action: D Actual RA Onsite Construction at au # 1 Q Actual RA Start at OU# . )

. 0 Construction Completion (Previous Fivt}-Year Review Report

. 0 Other (specify) Informed public review would be conducted

Triggering action date: June 10, 2004

Due date (five years after triggering action date):June 10, 2009 I

NPL status: IJ Final (Deleted D Other (specify)

Remediation Status (choose all that apply):. IJ Under Construction CJ Operating ,/ Complete

Multiple OUs?* IJYes. ,/ NO ,Construction completion date:March 28" 1994

Has site been put into reuse? COIYES . IJ NO ,/ NA

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: ,/ EPA [I State i) Tribe Q Other Federal Agency

Author name: Huu Ngo

Author title: Remedial Project Manager IAuthor Affiliation: U.S. EPA - Region 3

* ("aU" refers to operable unit.) **(Review period should correspond tothe actual start and end dates of the FiveYear Review in WasteLAN.)' .

J,

6


Five~Year Review Summary Form, Continued

Issues

1. Maintenance is required largely due to the deteriorated condition of the landfill cap causefl by trespassers at the Site.

. 2. Groundwater samples show exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Sampling methodology may cause inaccurate analytical results.

3. Combustible gas levels are not monitored at the'site boundary. Gas vents are not being monitored regularly., " '. ~

4.. Leachate/seep sampling showed exceedances of EPA Region 3 freshwater screening . benchmarks. Seep sampling is not being conducted on a regular basis.

5. Operation and maintenance (O&M) Reports are not provided annually and lack consistency· in the information provided.

6. Institutional controls are not required in Site decision documents.

Recommendations

1. Restore the vegetative cover. Repair damaged landfill gas 'vents. Repair perimeter fencing. Prevent unauthorized access to the landfill.

2. Revise sampling procedures for groundwater monitoring wells. Conduct additional round of groundwater sampling to confirm MeL exceedances.

3. Conduct a soil gas survey at the site boundary for methane. Incorporate regular gas vent monitoring into the O&M Plan.

4. Collect background and sediment samples to more effectively evaluate if the contaminants from the seeps are posing any unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. Incorporate regular seep sampling into the O&M Plan.

5. Update the O&M Plan to provide for more detailed reports and regular submission to the EPA.

. ~

.6. Develop a decision document to address the need for institutional controls..

FO,lIow..up Actions

EPA will meet with PADEP and the Site owner to discuss issues and implementation of recommendations. It is anticipated that it will take between 12-24 months to address these Issues.

Protectiveness Statement

Based on the information in this Five-Year Review, the remedy for the Site currently protects human health and the environment. Excayation and off-site disposal of all drums and highly contaminated fill material and waste was performed, followed by the installation of a landfill cap to cover the waste and contaminated soil areas. However, significant issues regarding the maintenance of the landfill cap, recent exceedences of MCLs and freshwater screening benchmarks,' and reporting should be addressed as soon as practicable to order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term.

7


Five-Year Review Summary Form, Continued

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measure Review

As part of this Five-Year Review the GPRA Measures have also been reviewed. The GPRA Measures and their status are provided as follows:

Environmental Indicators Human Health: Human ExposureiUnder Control (HEUC) Groundwater Migration: Groundwater Migration Under Control (GMUC)

)

Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU): The Sitewas determined SWRAU on January 15, 2008.

8


U.S. EnvironmentaJ Protection Agency Region III . .

Five -Year Review Report ~


Borough of Old Forge, Lackawanna County, Penrisylvania.

J. Introduction

The purpose of Five-Year Reviews is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and recommendations to address them.

EPA guidance on conducting a five-year re'view is provided by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA, 2001). EPA personnel followedthe guidance provided in this OSWER' directive in conducting the five-year review perfonned for the Site.

Five-year reviews are conducted either to meet the statutory mandate under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 121, or as a matter of EPA policy. The statutory requirement to conduct a five-year review was added to CERCLA as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). CERCLA § 121 states:

If the President selecis a remedial action that results in anyhazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less' often than each five years after the initiation ofsuch remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented In addition, ifupon such review it is the judgement ofthe President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [l04} or [I 06J, the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list offacilitiesfor which such review is required, the results ofall such reviews, and anyactions taken as a result ofsuch reviews.

The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(4)(ii), which states:

Ifa remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or r

contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation ofthe selected remedial action.

9

;'

La~kawanna Refuse Five-Year Review June 2009

The statutory requirement to conduct a Five-Year Review applies to CERCLA § 121 remedial actions selected after the effective date of SARA (OCtober 17, 1986). For sites where a statutory review is not specifically required, reviews may be conducted as a matter of policy for any of the following type actions:

1. A pre-SARA remedial action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure.

~

II. A pre- or post-SARA remedial action that, 6pon completion, will not leave hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, but will take longer that five years to complete, i.e., achieve the cleanup levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

III. A removal action for a site on the NPL that leaves hazardous substances,:pollutants, or contaminants above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, and where no· remedial action has or will take place.

The pre-SARA remedial action described in paragraph I, above, corresponds to the remedy selected for the Site; therefore, EPA Region III has conducted this Five-Year Review of the remedy implemented at the Site as a matter of policy due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

This review was conducted for the entire Site by the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) from AUgllst 2008 through June 2009. This report documents the results of the Five-Year Review. This Five-Year Review is the Fourth Five-Year Review for the Site. The triggering action for this policy review is the completion of the Third Five-Year Review dated June 10,2004 which documented that the remedial action continued to be protective of public health and the environment and 'was functioning as designed.

II. Site Chronology

..TTable 1 lists the chronology of events for the Site.

.,,1'&

E~~nt :.0;:;.....·.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued a permit for the disposal of solid wastes at the Site. - .

Permit was modified to allow disposal of sludges.

1973

1978 r

.10


~:;¥,~trf;"";"'L~~";;Yf~()i'''IUi,i;,1j'Y'' "','~~~¥h~t',:]?1~i ;il~ff~::/}'\" ':.1f:t:~ ",:")~:;,:? PADER issued an order suspending the solid waste permit and March 1979 requiring the cessation of landfill operations after discovering

, evidence of dumping of industrialwaste into Pit 5.

PADER issued a second order requiring Lackawanna Refuse to 1979 construct and operate a leachate collection system. The Company failed to comply and was found guilty and fined.

PADER investigated conditions in Pit 5 by excavating some of the 1979' area and drums.

EPA excavated 200 drums. Analysi's on 20 of the drums containing 1980 liquids and sludges showed high concentrations of solvents and paint waSte material with high metal and solvent contents,

EPA completes Site Investigation. 1982

The site is scored using the Hazard Ranking System.' c

1982

The site is proposed for the NPL. .

December 1982

The site is listed on the NPL. ,

September 1983

Removal Activities were conducted. EPA installed a chain-link gate September 1983 at the beginning of the access road to control vehicular traffic and a

- -'chain-link fence around all three pit areas to prevent unauthorized ,

access to the Site. l

Completed Remedial Investigation (RI) report for the site. November 1984

ROD signed. ,

March 22; 1985

Remedial Design completed. March 31, 1987

Start of Remedial Action. June 2, 1987

ESD signed: Leachate treatment plant eliminated from remedy. September 28, 1993

Final Site Close-Out Report signed. March 28, 1994

First Five Year Review report signed. September28, 1995

Second Five Year Review report signed. March 5, 1999

Site Deleted from NPL. September 28, 1999,

Third Five Year Review report signed , ,

June 10,2004

Third Five Year Review Addendum report signed December 29, 2004

Site inspection performed for Fourth Five Year Review November 6, 2008

, III. Background

Physical Characteristics,

The Site consists of 258 acres and is located along a section of the 'north-south border between Old Forge Borough and Ransom Township, in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. Lackawanna

11

Lackawanna Refuse . Five~Year Review June 2009

County is in the mountainous region of northeastern Pennsylvania. The Site is located on a mountainside surrounded by a foreste~ area and residences. The Site consisted of five strip mine pits excavated in the nineteenth century. As described in more detail below, three of those mines were used in the 1970s as permitted municipal refuse landfills. The Site is located above the floodplains of the St. Johns Cre~k and the Lackawanna River. The St. Johns Creek, following along the lower (eastern) edge of the Site, is an intermittent stream that is a tributary of the Lackawanna River, which flows into the Susquehanna River. A site map is provided as Figure 1 of this report

Land and Resource Use

Historically, the land surrounding the Site has been both residential and 'forested areas. The Site is closely bordered by ,several houses to the south and east. Austin Heights, a residential section of Old Forge Borough, is northeast oftheSite. The area west of the Site is forested, steep hills. The major change in land use in recent years is the ongoing construction of new homes along Edgewood Drive, which is located south/southeast of the Site.

\

The local residents do not depend on the groundwater as a source of drinking water, but obtain water through a public system derived from reservoirs several miles to the north of the Site. Although there are no downstream users of the surface water for drinking within three miles of the Site, the Lackawanna and Susquehanna Rivers are used fOf boa~ing, fishing, and recreation.

History of Contamination and Initial Responses

Five strip mine pits of five to six acres each were excavated at the Site during the last century. Three of the pits were later used for waste disposal in the 1970's. Two of those pits were used for the disposal of municipal and commercial refuse. The other pit (known as Pit 5) contained thousands of buried drums of hazardous waste, a~ well as municipal refuse. The drums consisted of various solvents, paints and thinners, sludges, organic acids, and toxic metals.. A list of what was found includes cobalt, chromium, lead, titanium, molybdenum, and zinc; as well as acetone, ethylbenezene, trichloroethylene' (TCE), chloroform, methylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride, trichlorobenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and vinyl chloride. Contaminant concentrations in some samples measured 20~30%. Also, unknown quantities of bulk liquid wastes were reportedly dumped or spilled from disposal vehicles onto the access road to the pits and into an adjacent depression, know as the "Borehole Pit".

In 1978, a cloud of white "vapor" was released from the Site when a truck driver allegedly dumped his load of waste into the pits. The gases from this release moved down-the mountainside and caused eye irritation and breathing difficulty in the residents of Old Forge. The immediate area was evacuated by the local authorities during this incident. In March 1979, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), subsequently renamed the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), issued an Order suspending the Site's solid waste permit and requiring immediate cessation of the landfill after discovering evidence of the dumping of industrial wastes and pollutants into Pit 5. The Order also required Lackawanna Refuse, the Site owner and operator, to dig up and dispose of buried drums containing hazardous wastes and all contaminated soil. PADER issued

12


a second Order in 1979 requiring Lackawanna Refuse to construct and operate a leachate collection system. Lackawanna Refuse failed to comply with these Orders, and the owner of Lackawanna Refuse; Peter Iacavazzi, Sr., wa~ brought to trial in 1982 in State court on criminal charges and found guilty of illegal dumping. He was subsequently released after taking into account his advanced age and poor physical condidon. He also plead guilty to failing to notify EPA that hazardous substances were disposed of at the Site and paid a $30,000 fine.

In 1980, the State requested EPA assistance and the Region responded by coordinating with the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) to conduct further excavation and analysis of the drums in Pit 5. NEIC excavated seven test areas in Pit 5, uncovering 200 drums at depths of five to thirty feet below the surface of the pit. Approximately 90% of the drums were found to be broken or crushed when they were excavated. Analysis was performed on twenty of the drums containing liquids or sludges and the results showed high concentrations of solvents and paint waste with high metal and solvent contents.

f

A site investigation by the Environmental Response Team (ERT) in 1982 revealed volatile organic vapors being released from Pit 5 at low levels. These gases included vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen., Data collected were used in applying the Hazard Ranking Systems to the Site, which resulted in an overall score of 36.57. This Site was proposed to the NPL on December 30, 1982 and formally added to the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8, 1983.

A Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was prepared in June 1983, and the Remedial Investigation (RI), Feasibility Study (FS) workplan was prepared in August 1983. In August 1983, EPA and its contractor began the RI to determine the nature and extent of contamination. associated with the site. The RI Report for the· Site was completed in November 1984.

'\

Removal activities were conducted at the Site in September 1983 when EPA installed a chainlink gate at the beginning of the access road to control vehicular traffic, and a chain-link fence around all three pit areas to prevent unauthorized access to the pit areas.

Basis for Taking Action

As described above, both organic and inorganic contaminants were present at the Site at elevated levels. Thesecontaminants were exposed to the environment due to improper disposal of industrial waste presenting an unacceptable risk to both human health and the enviro11Irient. fotential risks included direct contact with contaminated soil and drums aDd the release of contaminated leachate into the surrounding environment.

13


Contaminants

The following contaminants were detected during the Remedial Investigation (Rr):

Table 2: Detected Contaminants Pit 5 Monitoring Pit 5 Soil Pit 5 Leachate Pit 5 Seeps Borehole Pit Soils Well (MW 4) Magnesium Cadmium 2-Butanone Acetone Cadmium Manganese Chromium 4-Methylphenol Benzene Copper Nickel Copper Isophorone 2-Butanone Nickel Zinc Lead Diethyl Phthalate 2-Hexanone Tin Acetone Nickel Toluene Zinc 2-Butanone Mercury Vinyl Chloride Tetrach loroethy lene 1,2-Dichloroethane Titanium Xylene Toluene Methylene Chloride Benzene Phenol Ethylbenzene Toluene Toluene

Methylene Chloride Trichloroethylene

IV. Remedial Actions

Remedy Selection

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Lackawanna Refuse Site was signed on March 22, 1985. Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were developed after conducting the removal action and considering the results of the Remedial Investigation. These RAOs were used to aid in the development and screening of remedial alternative's to be considered for the ROD and were designed to prevent direct contact with contaminated waste imd prevent off-site migration of contamination. The ROD specifically states: "The major objective of remedial action at the Lackawanna Refuse Site is to eliminate or at least mitigate environmental contamination: (I) in Pits No.2, No.3, and No.5, (2) in the borehole pit, (3) in the surface soils and paint spill along portions of the access road, (4) in leachate-affected areas throughout the Site, and (5) in the intermittent drainage ditches adjacent to the Site."

The ROD describes EP~'sSelected Remedy for the Site as follows:

• Removal of all drums and highly contaminated municipal refuse from Pit 5 for offsite, disposal at a qualifying Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility.

• Construction of a clay cap over Pits 2, 3, and 5 that meets RCRA requirements. ,

• Installation of surface water drainage diversion around all three pits and construction of a leachate collection and treatment system for Pits 2, 3, and 5.

• Construction of a gas venting- system through the caps of all three pits.

14


+ Removal of the top layer of contaminated soil from the borehole pit for offsite disposal at a qualifying RCRA facility and returning the grade with a soil cover.

+ Removal of the top layer of contaminated soil from the access road and reconstruction of the road with appropriate drainage and sedimentation controls.

+ Removal of dried paint and contaminated soil in the paint spill area for offsite disposal at a qualifying RCRA facility.

+ Development of a monitoring program during the remedial action, to include the monitoring of the existing wells onsite, the gas venting system, and the leachate collection and treatment system.

+ Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the cap and the leachate collection and treatment system to be implemented by the State.

Remedy Implementation

EPA executed an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the' design and construction of the Remedial Action. The USACE started the Remedial Design on April 23, 1985 and it was completed on March 31, 1987. The cleanup contract was awarded on June 29, 1987 to Chemical Waste Management, Inc. The implementation and construction of the Remedial Action began in June 1987 and continued until May 7, 1991.

The Remedial Action started with the clearing oUrees, brush, stumps, roots, and embedded rocks within the project area as necessary for the implementation of the Remedial Action. The contaminated areas of the access road (approximately 1200 cubic yards) were removed and the access road was rebuilt and widened. The staging areas were also constructed, includi~g the drum staging area, drum handling area, the refuse staging bins, the high hazard staging area, the observation tower, and the decon area. At the same time, the decon trailer, the office trailers, and

. the onsite lab were established. The Borehole Area was excavated of contaminated soil (approximately 900 cubic yards) and filled with clean soil. The paint spill area was excavated of contaminated soil (approximately 10 cubic yards) and filled with clean soil.

Pit 5 was excavated, and the drums and the highly contaminated refuse were ~isposed off-site. This operation was conducted during the summer of 1988. The trash was excavated and stored in the refuse staging bins. The trash was then sampled and analyzed. If the analysis showed levels of contamination over that expected from typical municipal refuse, the refuse was disposed of off-site. The remaining refuse was redeposited into Pit 5. In addition, a total of 8,523 drums were removed from Pit 5.

After Pit 5 was backfilled with .the excavated municipal refuse and soil, Pits 2, 3, and 5 were covered with a multi-layer cap, which included a synthetic cover ahd leachate collection lines.

15


All components of the Remedial A<;:tion,were constructed withthe except,ion of the leachate treatment plant. The leachate treatment plant was not built because it became clear that there were other options available for the treatment of the leachate if leachate treatment was deemed necessary.

Final Inspection

A pre-final inspection was conducted at the Site by EPA, PADER, the USACE, andUSACE's contractor, Chemical Waste Management, Inc., on March 20, 1990; Punch lists of tasks to be accomplished before the final inspection were generated and the punch-list tasks were executed.

. ,

A final inspection was conducted on April 15, 1991. In attendance were representatives from EPA, PADER, USACE and Chemical Waste Management, Inc. At 'this inspection, no outstanding punch-list items were identified.

, Explanation of-Significant Difference (ESD) \

Subsequent to the placement of the synthetic cover, EPA's sampling showed that the landfill was l'

generating anegligible amount of leachate due to the effectiveness of the synthetic cover in reducing rainfall infiltration into the landfill. Based :on these observations, EPA determined that itwould be both technologically and economically infeasible to construct and operate a treatment

, system for such small flows. EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) on September 28, 1993, documenting the decision to remove the leachate treatment plant from the final remedy due to insufficient leachate. However, the ESD did require sampling of leachate as part of the Five-Year Review.

Remedial Action Complete

EPA issued a Final Site Closeout Report on March 28, 1994. The First Five-Year Review was' conducted in 1995 and the report was issued on September 28,1995. The Second Five-Year Review was-issued on March 5, 19?9. The Site was deleted from the NPL on September 28, 1999.

System Operation/Operation 'and Maintenance

, PADER developed an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan in February 1991 (revised December 1991 and July 2008). PADER accepted the Site for O&M of the Remedial Action on May 7,1991. The O&M Plan was revised in July 2008 following the purchase of the Site property by Mr. Lou Ciucio. Routine maintenance is currently performed by the property owner with oversight by PADEP. A copy ofth~ O&M Plan is included in this report as Attachment 2. There are no operating facilities and the remedy implemented at this Site does not constitute Long-Term Remedial Action: Therefore, theO&M requirements have two major components: maintenance inspections (and necessary repairs) and sampling. Below is a more detailed outline of those two components.

16

Lacka~anna Refuse Five-Year Review June 2009

1: Maintenance Inspections a. Facility Inspections b. Maintaining Co'ver and/or Vegetation c. Maintenance of Drainage Ditches d. Replacement of CAP System Material (as needed) e. Maintenance of Groundwater Monitoring System f. Planned Responses to Possible Post-Closure Occurrences

2. Sampling a. Data Collection and Documentation b. Quality Assurance c. Groundwater Sampling d. Groundwater Monitoring e. Leachate and Gas Vent Monitoring f. Sampling Results Notification

Based on discussions with the PADEP inspection team member, the current site owner currently performs the following O&M activities with the oversight of PADEP:

1. Semi-annual mowing of the landfill vegetative cover. 2. Annual monitoring of select monitoring wells (MW-IA, 2, II, 12, 13, and 14) with the groundwater samples being analyzed for VOCs and metals. 3. Monthly Site inspections. 4. Maintenance of sediment/erosion performed approximately twice per year.

, V. Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

This is the Fourth Five-Year Review for the Site. The protectiveness statement from the last Five-Year Review provided that:

"Based on the information in this five-year review evaluation, the remedy at the Lackawanna Refuse Site is currently considered to be protective of human health and the environment. However, significant issues regarding the maintenance of the landfill cap should be addressed as

, soon as practicable to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy."

The following recommendations were made during the last Five-Year Review and subsequent , Addendum to the Five Year Review to address the long-term protectiveness of the remedy:

• Prevent unauthorized access to the landfill, • Restore the landfill cap vegetative cover, • Repair the landfill gas vents, • Conduct leachate/seep sampling, , • Update the Site O&M Plan to provide for more detailed reports and • Implement Institutional Controls at the Site.

17


PADEP continues to conduct annual site visits to assess the conditionof the remedy and to perform monitoring well sampling. PADEP's O&M inspection checklists are include as Attachment 4. Attachment 5 includes the monitoring well results. PADEP O&M documentation indicates the following maintenance has beenconducted since the last Five-Year Review:

1. Trimming and clearing trees, I'

2. Cleaning and excavating drainage channels, '3. Seeding exposed areas; 4. Repairing holes in the perimeter fence and gates, and posting '~NO TRESPASSING" signs; 5.. Installing gas vent risers, 6. Placing topsoil over eroded areas, 7. Removing debris off the cap and· 8. Cutting and trimming vegetation.

EPA conducted a follow-up site inspection as a result of recommendations from the last FiveYear Review in August 2004. These results have been memorialized in the December 2004 Addendum to Third Five-Year Review Report. During the follow-up site inspection additional observations of the conditions of the cap were made which could not be observed previously due to snO\vy weather conditions. Additionally, landfill seep/surface water samples were taken. Analytical results indicated that detected contaminants were well below the applicable human health Risk Based Concentration (RBC) levels for surface water. Water quality and leachate parameters indicate that the seep was not representative of typical landfill leachate. The recommendations ofthe December 2004 Addendum essentially mirrored the recommendations of the Third Five-Year Review.

In December 2004 PADEP conducted Site maintenance, which addressed several of the issues, raised in the Third Five-Year Review and subsequent Addendum. Areas where trespassers had

. cut through Site fencing were repaired and in several areas large boulders were placed in front of the fence to further discourage future trespassing. Damaged gas vents were replaced and reinforced by placing mounds of #4 ballast stone around them to limit their visibility.

EPA conducted an additional Site inspection in March 2006 to further assess and document the condition .of the landfill and to check on progress in the implementation of the recommendations from the Third Five Year-Review. It was evident during the Site inspection that while PADEP had made efforts to restrict trespassing on the Site by fixing the perimeter gate and placing large boulders between exposed fence posts, trespassers were still cutting openings in the fence line to gain access. However, the overall condition ofthe cap remained protective; the grass cover was in good condition and had minimal bare spots, and the perimeter trenches appeared in good working order. Recommendations from this Site inspection included:

• Prevent unauthorized access to the landfill, • Repair the landfill gas vents and • Excavate a filled-in drainage swale.

18


PADEP noted these deficiencies in their O&M inspection checklist and, subsequently, addressed the recommendations.

EPA continued to work with PADEP to implement institutional controls at the Site, resulting in the issuance of a Section 512 Order in December 2006. The 512 Order acts as a deed restriction, . .

restricting any use of the Site property which is inconsistent with the continued implementation of the remedy at the Site as described in the ROD and,subsequent Site documents. A copy of the 512 order is included in the report as Attachment 6.

During the Spring of 2008, the Site was purchased by Louis Ciuccio. PADEP revised the O&M .plan in July 2008 to assign O&M activities to the new site owner, under the oversight of PADEP. The following chart summarizes progress since the last Five Year-Review:

Table 3: Actions Taken Since the Last Five-Year Review

Issues froin Previous Recommendations/ Party Milestone Action Taken Date of Review Follow-up Actions Responsible Date Action

Trespassing Prevent unauthorized aCcess to the landfill.

PADEP 6/10/09 Fence repaired and additional barriers implemented

12/04

Damage to landfill Restore the landfill cap PADEP 6/10/09 Vegetative 12/04 cap vegetative cover. cover restored

Damage to gas vents Repair the landfill gas PADEP 6/10/09 Gas vents 12/04 vents. repaired and

reinforced

Unknown landfill Conduct leachate/seep EPA 6/10/09 Seep sampling 8/04 seep sampling conducted

Lack ofO&M Update the Site O&M PADEP 6/10/09 O&M plan 7/08 documentation Plan to provide for updated

more detailed reports

-Restrictions on future Implemeht Institutional PADEP 6/10/09 PADEP512 12/06 use Controls at the Site Order

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

The Five-Year Review of the Site was led by Huu Ngo, EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM). The State Project Officer, Joe Iannuzzo, was notified of the initiation of the Five-Year Review in

. August 2008. Both representatives conducted a joint ~ite inspection on November 6, 2008 (Site Insepection) in support of the Five-Year Review. Also present at the Site Inspection were the owner of the property, Mr. Lou Ciucio, and EPA contractors.

19

Lackawanna Refuse Five~Year Review June 2009

Community Notification and Involvement

The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) Carr·ie Dietzel arranged for the Community Notification of the five year review. An advertisement appeared in the Scranton Times-Tribune on November 14;2008 indicating that EPA was conducting a Five-Year Review for the Site. The advertisement provided point of contact information, and identified the loc;ation of the information repositories for the Site. A copy of the tear sheet for the public notice is provided as Attachment 7.

EPA attempted to contact local ofticials on multiple occasions to conduct interviews prior to visiting the Site. During the November 6,2008 Site visit, EPA visited the Old Forge Borough Municipal Building and conducted an iriterview with Borough Council, Russell Rinaldi.

Document Review

The Five-Year Review consisted of a review of relevant documents inc1uc}iI}g the RI and FS reports; ROD; ESD; the Final Site Closeout Report; Post-Closure Plan; prev·ious Five-Year Reviews dated September 1995, March 1999 and June 2004, respectively; the December 2004 Addendum to the Third Five-Year Review; Notice of Intent to Delete; Notice of Deletion; and Operation and Maintenance Plan (See Attachment 3). PADEP also provided O&M documentation indicating maintenance activities that had been conducted (Attachment 4).·

Data Review

PADEP provided analytical results for annual groundwater monitoring well sampling activities performed in 2005, 2006, and 2008 (Attachment 5). Analytical results indicate that some samples contained lead, antimony and chromium in excess of their respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). High levels of antimony were not found in samples during the Remedial Investi~ation, however. EPA also re~iewed the methods utilized for collection of the well samples and found issues with the collection techniques. These issues cast doubt uponthe validity of the sainpli!1g results. Table 4 summarizes these exceedances.

Table 4: Monito'rmg WeII MCL Exceedances

Year Well

Contaminants (MCL) Lead~

(15 uglL) Antimony (6 uglL)

Chromium (100 uglL)

2005 lA 17.4 12.2 11 25.5

2006 lA 17 14 131

2008 2 68 27 11 160 8

* Lead is regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corroslven:ess of their water. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take addit(onal steps. For lead the action level is 0.015 mg/L.

20


On December 1, 2008, methane gas readings were taken for the 41 gas vents in the landfill cap as ' part of the Five-Year Review Site inspection using a Landtec GA-90 methane gas meter. Methane gas results ranged from 0.0% to 45.3%, within norma,lrange for landfills. The results are provided in the Site Inspection and Evaluation Report (Attachment 1).

Surface water samples were taken at three observed seeps at the Site. The sample results were compared with both the EPA MCLs and EPA Region 3's freshwater screening benchmarks developed by the Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG). No exceedances of MCLs were found. However, aluminum, barium, manganese and mercury were detected in the samples at levels above the freshwater screening benchmarks. Theexceedences for aluminum and mercury were essentially negated by similar or higher levels of these contaminants found in field blanks. These results are provided in the Site Inspection and Evaluation Report (Attachment 1).

, ,

Site Inspection " '

On November 6, 2008, the Site Inspection was conducted by EPA RPM, Huu Ngo; representatives from EPA's contraetorTetra Tech Inc.;'PADEP Project Officer, Joe Iannuzzo,: and Site owner Lou Ciucio. The purpose of the Site Inspection was to evaluate the physical condition of the remedy as well as to assess the effectiveness of actions taken to resolve issues identified in the previous Five-Year Review. The inspection team walked along the landfill perimeter and across the landfill surface. The team inspe'cted the perimeter fences, the surface of the landfill, the stormwater management features, and the methane gas vents. The team also inspec,ted the east, north, and observed seeps at the Site. Tetra Tech returned to the Site on December 1,2008 to collect methane gas readings from all 41 observed gas vents. They again returned to the Site on December 2 and December lOin order to collect seep and surface water samples. A detailed Site Inspection Report is attached to this Five-Year Review (see Attachment 1);

Interviews

On November 6, 2008, in conjunctiOl). with the Site Inspection, EPA visited the Old Forge Borough Municipal Building and conducted an interview with Borough Council Vice-Chairman Russell Rinaldi. Mr. Rinaldi indicated that he was aware of the continued issues with trespassing at the Site, and the recent sale of the property to Mr. Ciucio. He was unaware of any other issues at the Site. He also indicated that he was not aware of any public interest or concern with the Site. . .

VII. Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

,Base,d on the Site Inspection and a review of the ROD, as modified by the ESD, and other Site related documents, EPA's remedy for the Site appears to be functioning as intended. Per the ROD, the remedy was performed to minimize further groundwater, contamination, minimize the possibility of direct contact with contaminated soil and waste, and prevent contaminated leachate

21

Lackawanna Refuse Five-Year Review' June 2009

with some concerns over recent groundwater monitoring data and seep sampling data.. Analytical results from recent groundwater sampling activities performed by PADEP indicate that detected contamination is above the applicable MCLs for lead, antimony and chromium. However, there is uncertainty in the cause for these exceedances of the MCLs. The sampling methods utilized may have caused these e~ceedances.. It has been recommended that the O&M Plan be revisited to ensure accurate sampling methods. Also, additional sampling will be used to determine whether these sampling results reflect actual Site conditions or are artifacts of the sampling method. Seep sampling data falls below MCLs, but exceeds some EPA Region 3 freshwater screening benchmarks. These issues, which need to be addressed as soon as practicable, do not prevent the remedy from functioning as intended. .

Also, the landfill cap is in neyd of some repair. These repairs are required largely due to damage caused by trespassers at the Site, despite continued efforts by PADEP to repair the damage'

.during their regularO&M visits .. The ongoing use of the Site by unauthorized all-terrain vehicl~s

(ATVs) has damaged portions of the vegetative cover of the landfill cap. In addition, some of the gas vents have bullet holes and one riser had been removed from the base. Mitigation of these deficiencies is required for the remedy to continue to function as intended.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RA Os used at the time ofthe remedy still valid? .

The exposure assumptions (land use, exposure routes, contaminant sources, COC~ and physical conditions) and RAOs used at the time EPA selected the Site remedy are still valid and applicable to the Site. Toxicity and clean-up levels for groundwater and leachate were not discussed in the ROD. However, groundwater analytical data is compared to respective MCLs. 'Seep sampling data is compared to bothMCLs and EPA Region 3 freshwater screening ,benchmarks.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness ofthe remedy?

The Site Inspection has revealed maintenance issues at the Site. Because of trespassers, the' perimeter fence has been damaged, and ~he vegetative cover has deteriorated. However, ~ A DEP continues to address these issues as they arise through their Operation and Maintenance schedule. The severity of damage to the gas vents has significantly decreased as PA DEP has added mounds of rock to protect the vents. Exceedences of MCLs and freshwater screening

. benchmarks also need to be addressed. .

Technical Assessment Summary

According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. As modified by the ESD. The condition of the cap, while in need of someIepair, remains protective and continues to prevent direct contact with contaminated soil and waste. Revision of the sampling procedures and additional sampling shouldhelp resolve exceedances of MCLs in groundwater monitoring well samples. Additional sampting should also help resolve exceedances of freshwater screening benchmarks in seep samples. The

22

Lackawanna Refuse Five-Year Review June 2009 /

exposure assumptions and RAOs remain valid. However, since toxicity and clean-up levels were not mentioned in the ROD, groundwater data is compared to MCLs and seep sampling data is compared to both MCLsand freshwater screening criteria. The Site inspection revealed maintenance issues at the site, which need to be addressed, but do not call into question the current protectiveness of the remedy.

VIII. Issues

Operation and Maintenance:

Despite regular efforts to fix the Site fence, trespassers continue to gain access to the Site by cutting through the perimeter fence. 'Trespassing 'ATVs have detrimentally affected the vegetative cover, creating ruts in the landfill cap which could result in erosion of the cover. A proper vegetative cover is required to maintain the integrity of the landfill containment system. Trespassers have also vandalized some gas vents, although the addition of mounds of rock around the vents has significantly reduced the severity of gas vent damage. During tre Site Inspection only one gas vent riser had been removed from the base. Others had bullet-hole marks.

Groundwater Monitoring:

Monitoring well sampling results from PADEP's annual sampling efforts were reviewed. Lead, antimony and chromium were found in concentrations exceeding their applicable MCLs in some

. samples. However, according to PADEP, these samples were unfiltered, and analyzed for total solids rather than toialdissolved solids, which has the tendency to inflate the sample results. The uncertainty in the quality of data indicates that additional well sampling is required to determine.,. whether the MCL exceedarices are accurate or are artifacts of a flawed sampling method. There are no drinking water wells in the vicinity of the landfill, and there is no current potential for exposure to the contaminants detected in the groundwater.

Gas Vent Measurements:

Readings were taken from the 41 methane gas vents on Site. The levels of methane ranged from 0.0% to 45.3%, which is within the norm-al range for landfills. Pennsylvania Code (25 Pa. Code § 273.292) specifies that combustible gas levels must remain below 25% of the LEL in structures and below the LEL at the site boundaries. There are currently no structures on the landfill surface.' 25 Pa Code §273.17 requires "A plan to monitor and record offsite gas migration and

, gas accumulation on and off. the site, including structures." The monitoring performed by PA DEP does not currently include regular monitoring of the gas vents.

Seep Sampling:

The samples collected from the three observed seeps at the Site do not show exceedances of MCLs. Howe~er, when these surface water samples were compared with EPA Region 3 freshwater screening benchmarks, aluminum, barium, manganese and mercury were found above

23

Lackawanna Refuse 'Five-Year Review June 2009

the benchmarks. The exceedences for aluminum and mercury were essentially negated since they were similar or lower than field blank samples. However, the barium and manganese results remain a concern for ecological receptors. Seep sampling has become a regular part of the FiveYear Review in order to confirm that the remedy remains protective. However, because the seep sampling has not been incorporated into the O&M plan, sampling is not performed regularly.

Operation and Maintenance Plan:

Since the last five year review, the O&M plan has been modified to transfer much of the O&M responsibilities to the current Site owner, with oversight by PA DEP. Despite the revision of the O&M Plan, several issues still exist. EPA has not been receiving O&M reports for the Site on an annual basis. EPA received copies of the O&M inspection checklists, however follow-,up actions to issues raised in the checklist are not always provided.

Institutional Controls:

Since the last Five-Year Review, EPA continued to work with PADEP to implement institutional controls at the Site, resulting in the issuance,of a Section 512 Order in December 2006.' The 512 Order acts as a deed restriction, restricting any lise' of the Site property which is inconsistent with the continued implementation of the remedy at the Site as described in the ROD and subsequent Site documents.' However, the need for institutional controls themselves was not specified in the original ROD or in any decision documents. .

Table 5: Issues

Issue Currently Affects Protectiveness (YIN)

Affects Future .J

Protectiveness (YIN)

Evidence of damage to the vegetative cover, gas vents, and perimeter fencing due to trespassing by ATVs

MCL exceedances in groundwater samples and sampling methods may cause inaccurate results " -

N

N

N

N

N ,

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Gas vent levels not monitored at site . boundary and not occurring regularly

Seep samples above screening benchmarks and not performed regularly

, -O&M Reports not received annually and lack consistency

Institutional Controls not specified in ROD

24


IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

The following actions are critical to proper maintenance of the Remedy:

• Perimeter fencing should be repaired and EPA and the State should discuss prevention of unauthorized access to the landfill. The vegetative cover should be restored, and EPAand the State should discuss ways to prevent future damage to the cover. Damaged landfill gas vents should be repaired and it should be confirmed that they are properly managing and controlling landfill gas. . • EPA and the State should discuss the procedures for groundwater sampling to ensure samples collected accurately reflect Site conditions. The O&M Plan should be updated to specify procedures for sampling if necessary. An additional round of groundwater sampling should be performed utilizing revised procedures. • A soil gas investigation should be conducted at the Site boundary in proximity to the closest residential area to the Site and the O&M plan should be updated to include regular checking of the methane levels throughout the Site to ensure landfill gas management requirements of 25 Pa. Code §273.171 and 25 Pa. Code §273.292 are being met. • During future seep sampling events, background samples and sediment samples should also be collected t,o aid in the interpretation of the seep sampling data and to more effectively evaluate if the contaminants from the seep~ are posing any unacceptable risk to ecological. . receptors. Surface water and sediment samples should be taken from drainage channels and the area receiving waters, specifically St. John's creek during the next seep sampling event. Seep sampling should be incorporated into the O&M Plan in order to ensure that it is conducted on a regular basis. • The Si.te O&M Plan should be updated to ensure consistency in O&M reporting. It should include provisions to document all inspections and follow-up actions, sampling activities and analytical results; and maintenance activities performed. Reports should be provided to EPA on an annual basis summarizing O&M decisions and activities and include a copy of all Site documentation. • The need for Institutional Controls should be memorialized in a decision document

25

Lackawanna Refuse Five-Year Review June. 2009

The following table summarizes these recommendations:

. Table 6: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Issue Recommendations Party

and Follow-up Responsible Actions

Oversight Agency

.. Evidence of damage to the vegetative cover, gas vents, and perimeter fencing due to trespassing by ATVs

MCL exceedances in groundwater samples and sampling methods may cause inacclirate results

Gas vent levels not monitored at

. site boundary and ... not occurring regularly

Seep samples above screening benchmarks and not performed regularly.

O&M Reports not received annually and lack consistency

Institutional Controls not required in ROD

Repair damaged areas of vegetative cover, gas vents, perimeter fencing, and prevent unauthorized access to the landfill

Update O&M Plan to ensure accurate groundwater sampling procedures, and conduct additional groundwater sampling

Conduct Soil Gas surveyat S,ite boundary, and incorporate gas vent monitoring into O&M Plan

Conduct additional sampling and Incorporate seep ~ampling into O&M plan

Update O&M plan to ensure consistency and regular delivery

Decision Document which incorporates ICs into the Remedy

PA DEP

PA DEP

PA DEP

PA DEP

PA DEP

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

EPA

PA DEP

Milestone Date

6/10110

611 0111

611 0111

6/10/11

6/10/11

6/10111

Affects· Protectiveness (YIN)

Current Future

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

y

y

Y

y

y

\

26

· Lackawanna Refuse Five-Year Review June 2009

x. Protectiveness Statement

Based on the information in this Five-Year Review, the remedy,for the Site currently protects human health and the environment. Excavation and off-site disposal of all drums and highly contaminated fill material and waste was performed, followed by the installation of a landfill cap to cover the waste and contaminated soil areas. However, sigpificimt issues regarding the maintenance of the landfill cap, recent exceedences 9fMCLs, and freshwater screening benchmarks, and reporting should be addressed as soon as practicable to order for the remedy to . be protective in the long-term.

XI. Next Review

The next Five-Year Review for the Lackawanna Refuse Superfund Site is to be completed by June 2014, five years from the signature date of this review.

27 (