RRDD#1 LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION

REGIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL DISTRICT #1BARKHAMSTED, CONNECTICUT

DECEMBER, 1991

FUSS&O'NEILLconsulting engineers

146 Hartford Road, Manchester, Connecticut 06040Telephone (203) 646-2469 FAX (203) 643-6313

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT • WASTE WATER SYSTEMS • EROSION CONTROL • WATER SYSTEMS • HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS • SITE PLArHIGHWAYS and BRIDGES • SURVEYING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC • PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT • HYC30GEO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Site Description 1-1 1.2 Objectives 1-2 1.3 Previous Investigations 1-3

2.0 SITE SETTING 2-1 2.1 Physiography 2-1 2.2 Regional Geology 2-2

2.2.1 Regional Surficial Geology 2-2 2.2.2 Regional Bedrock Geology 2-3

2.3 Regional Hydrogeology 2-5 2.3.1 Groundwater Quality Classification 2-6

2.4 Surface Water Hydrology/Drainage 2-7 2.4.1 Surface Water Quality Classification 2-11

2.5 Potential Receptors 2-11 2.5.1 Human Receptors 2-11 2.5.2 Environmental Receptors 2-13

3.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW 3-1 3.1 Landfill Operational History 3-1 3.2 File Reviews 3-2

3.2.1 CTDEP File Review 3-2 3.2.1.1 Solid Waste Management

Unit (SWMU) Files 3-2 3.2.1.2 Hazardous Waste Materials

Unit (HWMU) Files 3-12 3.2.1.3 Superfund Files 3-17 3.2.1.4 Water Compliance Division Files 3-17 3.2.1.5 Oil and Chemical Spills

Division Files 3-18 3.2.1.6 Underground Storage Tank Files 3-18

3.2.2 RRDD#1 Files 3-19 3.2.3 Barkhamsted Town Files 3-20

3.3 Personal Interviews 3-20 3.4 Aerial Photograph Analysis 3-22

3.4.1 1975 Aerial Photograph 3-23 3.4.2 1980 Aerial Photograph 3-24 3.4.3 1986 Aerial Photograph 3-25

4.0 INITIAL SITE RECONNAISSANCE 4-1 4.1 Site Mapping 4-1 4.2 Initial Site Screening 4-1 4.3 Ecological Characterization 4-4

4.3.1 Literature Review 4-4 4.3.1.1 Flora 4-5 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Fauna 4-6 4.3.1.3 Aquatic Fauna 4-6 4.3.1.4 Rare & Endangered Species 4-8

i

TLW1207A91X90264

FUSS&ONBLL.fMC printed on recycled paper i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE

4.3.2 Ecological Reconnaissance 4-9 4.3.3 Summary - Ecological

Characterization 4-14

5.0 PRELIMINARY SOURCE AREA IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 5-1 5.1 Identification of Potential Disposal Areas 5-1 5.2 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey 5-5

5.2.1 Theory - Ground Penetrating Radar 5-6 5.2.2 Methodology - GPR Survey 5-7 5.2.3 Initial GPR Survey 5-8 5.2.4 Full-Scale GPR Survey 5-10 5.2.5 Conclusions - GPR Survey 5-21

5.3 Soil Gas Survey 5-23 5.3.1 Methodology - Soil Gas Survey 5-23 5.3.2 Results - Soil Gas Survey 5-27 5.3.3 Conclusions - Soil Gas Survey 5-29

5.4 Test Borings and Subsurface Soil Sampling 5-32 5.4.1 Methodology - Test Boring Program 5-33 5.4.2 Field Screening Results

- Test Borings 5-35 5.4.3 Analytical Results

- Subsurface Soil Samples 5-39 5.4.4 Conclusions - Test Boring Program 5-41

5.5 Conclusions - Source Area Identification and Characterization 5-43

6.0 SITE-WIDE FIELD INVESTIGATION 6-1 6.1 Monitoring Well Installation 6-1 6.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing 6-3

6.2.1 Methodology - Hydraulic Conductivity Testing 6-4

6.2.2 Data Analysis - Hydraulic Conductivity Testing 6-5

6.3 Water Level Measurements 6-5 6.4 Water Sampling 6-7

6.4.1 Groundwater Sampling 6-9 6.4.1.1 Target Compound List Sampling

Event 6-9 6.4.1.2 Full-Round Sampling Event 6-10

6.4.2 Surface Water Sampling 6-11 6.4.3 Domestic Well Sampling 6-12

6.5 Lineament Analysis 6-13

ii

TLW1207A91X90264

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE

7.0 GEOLOGY 7-1 7.1 Surficial Geology 7-1

7.1.1 Stratigraphy 7-2 7.1.2 Stratigraphic Units 7-7

7.1.2.1 Glacial Till 7-8 7.1.2.2 Stratified Drift 7-9 7.1.2.3 Alluvium 7-11

7.1.3 Distribution 7-11 7.1.3.1 Glacial Till 7-11 7.1.3.2 Stratified Drift 7-12

7.2 Bedrock Geology 7-15 7.2.1 Pegmatite 7-16 7.2.2 Schist 7-17 7.2.3 Amphibolite 7-18 7.2.4 Amphibolite Schist 7-19

7.3 Results of Lineament Analysis 7-20

8.0 HYDROGEOLOGY 8-1 8.1 Results of Hydraulic Conductivity Testing 8-1

8.1.1 Overburden Hydraulic Conductivity 8-1 8.1.2 Shallow Bedrock Hydraulic Conductivity 8-3

8.2 Groundwater Flow Characteristics 8-6 8.2.1 Groundwater Flow Directions and Rates 8-6

8.2.1.1 Overburden 8-6 8.2.1.2 Shallow Bedrock 8-10

8.2.2 Vertical Groundwater Migration 8-13 8.2.3 Groundwater Recharge/Discharge Areas 8-14

8.3 Conclusions - Hydrogeology 8-16

9.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 9-1 9.1 Soils and Vadose Zone 9-1 9.2 Groundwater 9-2

9.2.1 Results - Target Compound List Sampling Event 9-2

9.2.2 Results - October 8-11, 1991 Sampling Event 9-4

9.2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 9-5 9.2.2.2 Acid Extractable Semi-Volatile

Organic Compounds 9-12 9.2.2.3 Dissolved Metals 9-17 9.2.2.4 Leachate Indicator Parameters 9-21

9.3 Surface Waters 9-24 9.4 Domestic Supply Wells 9-26 9.5 Discussion of Results - Nature and Extent

of Contamination 9-27

iii

TLWI207A91\90264

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE

10.0 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT AND MIGRATION PATHWAYS 10-1 10.1 Surface Water 10-1 10.2 Ground Water 10-2

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11-1

12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 12-1 12.1 Additional Investigations 12-1 12.2 Proposed Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring

Program 12-1

13.0 REFERENCES 13-1

14.0 LIMITATIONS OF WORK PRODUCT 14-1

FOLLOWING FIGURES PAGE

1 Site Location Map 1-1 2 Potable Water Supply Map 2-13 3 Typical GPR Record 5-6 4 April 4, 1986 Aerial Photograph Lineaments 7-20 5 April 23, 1990 Aerial Photograph Lineaments 7-20 6 May 1984 SLAR Lineaments 7-21 7 Rose Diagram April 4, 1986 Aerial Photograph

Lineaments 7-20 8 Rose Diagram April 23, 1990 Aerial Photograph

Lineaments 7-20 9 SLAR Lineaments Rose Diagram 7-21

TABLES END OF REPORT

1 Relative Fish Species Abundance, Farmington River, Mugbrook Dam to Route 202

2 Soil Gas Screening Data - August-September 1991 3 Soil Sampling Screening Data - September-October 1991 4 Summary of Laboratory Detected Parameters for Test Boring

Samples 5 Well Construction Details 6 Hydraulic Conductivities of Overburden Wells 7 Hydraulic Conductivities of Shallow Bedrock Wells 8 Target Compound List Analytes 9 Analytical Methods - October 8-11, 1991 Sampling Event 10 Metals and Leachate Indicator Parameters Analytical Methods

October 8-11, 1991 Sampling Event 11 Domestic Supply Well Information 12 Groundwater Elevations 13 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients 14 Summary of Detected Parameters - Target Compound List

Sampling Event

iv

printed on recycled paper

_̂

~"\

""

TABLES END OF REPORT

15

16

Summary of Detected Parameters October 8-11, 1991 Sampling Event

Field Parameters Summary October 8-11, 1991 Sampling Event

17 Total VOC and Semi-VOC Concentrations - October 8-11, 1991

1819

Sampling Event Drinking Water Standard Exceedances Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Program

PLATES END OF REPORT

1 Study Area Map 2 Surface Water Drainage Map 3A Topographic Plan (North) 3B Topographic Plan (South) 4 Ecological Reconnaissance Map 5 March 28, 1975 Aerial Photograph 6 April 3, 1980 Aerial Photograph 7 April 3, 1986 Aerial Photograph 8 Potential Disposal Areas 9 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey Map 10 Soil Gas Survey Map 11 Test Boring Location Map 12 Domestic Supply Well Sampling Locations 13 Surficial Geology Map 14 Geologic Cross Section A-A'

15 Geologic Cross Section B-B' 16 Geologic Cross Section C-C'

17 Bedrock Surface Contour Map 18 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, October 8, 1991 19 Shallow Bedrock Potentiometric Surface Contour Map, October

8, 1991 20 Total VOC Concentrations - Overburden Wells and Surface

Waters 21 Total VOC Concentrations - Shallow Bedrock Wells 22 Aromatic VOCs Concentration Isopleths - Overburden Wells

and Surface Waters 23 Non-Halogenated VOCs Concentration Isopleths - Overburden

Wells and Surface Waters 24 Halogenated VOCs Concentration Isopleths - Overburden Wells

and Surface Waters 25 Total Semi-VOC Concentrations - Overburden Wells and

Surface Waters 26 Total Semi-VOC Concentrations - Shallow Bedrock Wells 27 Total Concentrations of Selected Metals - Overburden Wells

and Surface Waters 28 Total Concentrations of Selected Metals - Shallow Bedrock

Wells 29 Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations - Overburden Wells

and Surface Waters 30 Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations - Shallow Bedrock

Wells

TtW1207A91\90264

RJSS&O1«4..*IC printed on recycled paper

APPENDICES END OF REPORT

A Consent Order No. 666 B Historical Document Working Reference List C Ground Penetrating Radar Limitations and Applications D Selected Ground Penetrating Radar Transect Records E Analytical Results - Test Boring Soil Samples F Test Boring Logs - Fuss & O'Neill and Geologic Co. G Monitoring Well Boring and Core Logs, Well Completion

Reports, and Well Construction Diagrams H Slug Test Data and Model Curves I Analytical Results, Chain-of-Custody Forms, and Field Data

Sheets - Target Compound List Sampling Event J Data Validation Reports - Target Compound List Sampling

Event K Analytical Results, Chain-of-Custody Forms, and Field Data

Sheets - October 8-11, 1991 Sampling Event L Analytical Results Summary - October 8-11, 1991 Sampling

Event M RRDDtfl Historical Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Data

Summary

vi

TLW1207X91X90264

FUSS&ONBLL.HMC. printed on recycled paper

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In response to Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection Administrative Order No. 666 (Appendix A), a plan

entitled "Scope of Study Regional Refuse Disposal District #1

Landfill, Barkhamsted, Connecticut" was prepared for the

Regional Refuse Disposal District One (RRDDtfl) by Fuss &

O'Neill, Inc. and was submitted to and approved by the

Connecticut DEP. This report is the final deliverable required

by the approved Scope of Study.

This report describes the performance and findings of the

historical investigation, physical site characterization, and

field investigation phases of the conducted study as required by

the Scope of Study. The nature and extent of soil, surface

water, and groundwater contamination on and emanating from the

site have been characterized as completely as possible based on

the results of this investigation. Recommendations have been

provided regarding additional investigation required to fully

define the extent and degree of contamination on and emanating

from the site.

1.1 Site Description

The RRDD#1 landfill is located adjacent to, and southwest of,

Route 44 within the Towns of Barkhamsted and New Hartford,

Connecticut. A site location map is provided as Figure 1.

Barkhamsted and New Hartford are rural communities located in

the north central portion of the state, approximately 20 miles

northwest of Hartford.

The RRDD#1 Landfill is located on a 97.8 acre parcel of land on

the northern slope of a hill within the Farmington River Valley.

1-1 TLW121BA91\90264

FUSS&O-NHLLJNC. > printed on recycled paper

! ̂ f̂e l̂p i" -< *sn\-'-!•;(/ ^-^--.-•^ff-j

SCALE 1 2-1000 i

I MIlF J . o i=TH-i_r^"j -==a_^^i t _i ~_ = ?

1000

n. i~i 1-1 0 1000 ?000 1000 4000 WOO WXT) 7000 F fF !

I FI ^ F^

NOTE: SOURCE MAPS ARE U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS WINSTED AND NEW HARTFORD QUADRANGLES 7.5 MINUTE SERIES 1956 PHOTOREVISED 1984. FIGURE

FUSS&O'NEILL M A N C H E S T E R . C O N N E C T I C U T

SITE LOCATION MAP

RRDDfclLANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION

REGIONAL RE FUSE DISPOSAL DISTRICT # I

ROUTE 44PROJ NO 90-264 DATE

BARKHAMSTED. CONN. 3EC 991 S C A L E r = 200C

.OSbPH

A map of the site and the surrounding area is presented as

Plate 1. The majority of the acreage south and west of the

active landfill area is undeveloped land also owned by RRDDtfl.

The landfill is bordered to the north by the Barkhamsted Town

Garage facility and to the northeast by Route 44 and undeveloped

land abutting the Farmington River flood plain owned by the

Metropolitan District Commission. Several private homes

abutting Route 44 are present near the southeastern portion of

the RRDD#1 property. Residential homes are also located west

and northwest of the landfill on Rust Road and Old County Road.

Landfill operations at the site are limited to a northern 17

acre area located within the Town of Barkhamsted. Landfilled

refuse overlies approximately 10.2 acres of this area. The

active landfill area is bordered to the north by the RRDDtl

office and maintenance facility area, to the west by the stream

valley which bisects the RRDD#1 property, to the east by the

landfill access road, and to the south by a drainage ditch

running adjacent to the Barkhamsted-New Hartford town line.

The RRDD#1 Landfill has been used for solid waste disposal since

April 1974. In 1983, RRDD#1 received Solid Waste Permit #005-2L

from the Connecticut DEP for operation of a sanitary landfill.

RRDDtfl is currently operating under that permit which was

amended in 1987 to include the current quarterly groundwater

monitoring program.

1.2 Objectives

As required by DEP Consent Order No. 666, the primary objectives

of this investigation were to:

1) Investigate the

activities on-site;

waste materials and disposal

TLW1218A91X90264

1-2

R1SS&OTCLL.INC printed on recycled paper

2) Determine the potential impact of such activities or such waste on human health both on-site and off-site; and;

3) Determine the existing and potential extent and degree

of soil, groundwater, and surface water pollution.

The landfill is currently being investigated as part of the USEPA National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300) Superfund

process. A secondary goal of this investigation was to provide

data and information to be used in the RI/FS process.

Additionally, recommended modifications to the landfill's current quarterly groundwater monitoring program were to be

proposed based on the findings of this study.

1.3 Previous Investigations

Roger A. Whitney, Inc. prepared permit and permit amendment applications, landfill construction plans, and served as the

landfill's consultant until mid 1988. Whitney, Inc. also

performed or supervised water quality sampling at the site.

John Raabe, PhD., a geologist of Geological Services, Inc.,

supervised the installation of seven (7) groundwater monitoring wells and collected groundwater samples for laboratory analysis

between July, 1983 and early 1984. This work was required by a

1983 court settlement between RRDD #1 and the Town of

Barkhamsted. During this time period, Geological Services prepared monthly reports summarizing the status of required

activities.

1-3 TLW1218A91\90264

printed on recycled paper RlSS8lO^̂ HLL.lNC

Donald Reed of Donald E. Reed, Consulting Geologist, Inc., a

subcontractor of Roger A. Whitney, Inc., supervised installation

of eight (8) additional groundwater monitoring wells in April,

1985 and provided consulting services from 1984 to 1988. Reed

prepared a hydrogeologic report for the landfill dated

October 15, 1984 which was submitted to the CTDEP.

Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. (F&O) has performed groundwater monitoring

at the RRDD #1 Landfill since mid 1988. Fuss & O'Neill prepared

1988/1989 and 1990 annual summary reports of the landfill

groundwater monitoring program for submittal to the CTDEP. Fuss

& O'Neill also prepared the DEP-approved Scope of Study (F&O,

1990) detailing the investigation required by DEP Consent Order

No. 666.

1-4 TLW121SA91A90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&O1SBLL.IIMC

2.0 SITE SETTING

2.1 Physiography

The RRDD#1 landfill and its facilities are situated on the

northern toe of a gentle, north-to-south trending hill between a

higher ridge with a similar trend to the west and the floodplain

of the West Branch of the Farmington River to the east.

The floodplain of the West Branch of the Farmington River lies

at an elevation of approximately 400 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL)

and extends west from the river to the base of the Route 44 road

bed. From this point westward the topography slopes up

moderately to an approximate elevation of 495 feet in the

vicinity of the landfill office and maintenance garage area.

The ridge to the west of the landfill runs southwest to

northeast across the western one-third of RRDD#1 property.

Elevations range from 600 feet near the base of the ridge to

greater than 800 feet along the RRDD#1 western property line.

Elevations in the landfill area range from approximately 430

feet at the landfill entrance on U.S. Route 44 to nearly 600

feet at the crest of the landfill landform. The elevation at

the base of the northern toe of the landform in the vicinity of

the landfill office and maintenance building and recycling area

is approximately 495 feet. At the southern limit of the

landfill borrow excavation area undisturbed ground is present at

an elevation of approximately 600 feet.

The topography in the vicinity of the landfill office building

and recycling area has been altered and regraded. An abandoned

railroad bed and the former Greenwoods Turnpike formerly ran

east-west across the site Just south and north, respectively, of

2-1 TLW121BB91\90264

RJSS&0-NBU..NC.printed on recycled paper

http:RJSS&0-NBU..NC

the office building. Excavation of borrow material used for

landfill cover at the south end of the site has been extensive.

Extensive sand and gravel excavation has also occurred near the

Town of Barkhamsted garage Just north of the landfill property.

2.2 Regional Geology

The RRDD#1 Landfill is located in the southwestern portion of

the New Hartford, Connecticut quadrangle. Mapping of the

surficial and bedrock geology of the quadrangle has been

conducted by Schnabel (1973, 1975). The following sections

provide a general summary of the geology in the vicinity of the

landfill.

2.2.1 Regional Surficial Geology

Unconsolidated materials cover approximately 95 percent of the

New Hartford Quadrangle (Schnabel, 1975). Pleistocene and

Holocene sediments consist mainly of glacial till with less

extensive stratified sand, silt, and gravel deposits. The

thickness of overburden deposits in this area ranges from

0 to 90 feet (Schnabel, 1975).

Glacial till has been characterized as unsorted to poorly-sorted

sands, silts, clays, and gravel. In addition, boulders up to 30

feet in diameter have been known to occur. Mapping in this area

indicates that subangular to rounded coarse-grained materials

tend to be concentrated at higher elevations (Schnabel, 1973;

1975). Two varieties of till are interpreted by Schnabel (1975)

to be present locally. A compact layer is interpreted to have

been deposited by advancing glaciers and compacted by the weight

of the glaciers; during glacial retreat a less dense upper till

layer was deposited (Schnabel, 1975).

2-2 TIW1218B91X90264

printed on recycled paper

Near the RRDDtfl Landfill in the southwestern corner of the New

Hartford quadrangle, stratified sand, silt, and gravel deposits

are concentrated along the valley of the West Branch of the

Farroington River. Three separate sedimentary units have been

mapped within these deposits: stream terrace deposits,

ice-contact stratified drift, and alluvium.

Surficial sediments mapped as stream terrace deposits consist

primarily of gravels, sands, and silts. In this area, these

deposits are mapped 50 feet above the elevation of the

Farmington River floodplain and are interpreted to have been

deposited during glacial retreat (Schnabel, 1975).

Ice-contact stratified drift deposits are not mapped within the

immediate vicinity of the site. These deposits occur along the

East Branch of the Farmington River as well as in isolated

pockets in the northeastern corner of the quadrangle. This

unit, characterized by cobbley or bouldery sand and gravel, is

inferred to have been deposited during the mid to late

Pleistocene Epoch (Schnabel, 1975).

Alluvial deposits mapped by Schnabel (1975) within this

quadrangle have been characterized as sand, silt, and gravel

deposits. These deposits are concentrated along the Farmington

River floodplain, but less extensive deposits occur along

smaller watercourses in the region. The alluvium typically

contains many cobbles and boulders up to 14 feet in diameter.

Holocene deposits at the surface may overlie Pleistocene age

stratified drift (Schnabel, 1975).

2.2.2 Regional Bedrock Geology

In the vicinity of the RRDD#1 Landfill, the underlying basement

is mapped as crystalline metamorphic bedrock of the Hoosac and

2-3 TLU121BB91\90264

FUSS&O-NEU..MC printed on recycled paper

Moretown Formations. These formations are overlain to the east

by the younger Straits Schist and Hartland Formations.

Schnabel (1975) interprets the bedrock underlying the RRDD#1

site to belong to the lower to middle Ordovician Moretown

Formation. This unit is a fine-grained

quartz-plagioclase-biotite-(muscovite)-(garnet) schist, which is medium gray to medium light gray in color.

The formation also contains thin beds of fine-grained, light

green to black hornblende-epidote-plagioclase amphibolite.

Characteristic of this formation is schist containing 3 to 6 millimeter (0.13 to 0.25 inch) layers of granular quartz and

feldspar separated by very thin biotite and muscovite laminae.

The basal contact of this formation is marked by amphibolite

which is continuous across the quadrangle and rarely exceeds 50

feet in thickness.

The upper member of the Hoosac Formation is believed to be Lower

Cambrian age or older (Proterozoic). This unit is a finely

l a m i n a t e d , fine-to m e d i u m - g r a i n e d quartz-biotite-plagioclase-muscovite (garnet) schist, light to

medium gray in color. Where exposed, weathered surfaces of this

unit may be light brown to moderate red. Muscovite flakes of

about 3 millimeters (0.13 inch) in diameter and oriented at various angles to the foliation characterize this unit. In the

New Hartford quadrangle the thickness of the Hoosac Formation

ranges from zero to approximately 3,000 feet.

The mapped contact between the Moretown and Hoosac formations trends generally southwest to northeast past the northwestern

margin of the RRDD#1 site. The nature and tectonic significance

of the contact separating the Hoosac and Moretown Formations in

this region is a point of controversy. Schnabel (1975)

2-4 TLU121BB91X90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OT^BU^WC

suggested that the contact is a very low angle unconformity

based on a lack of evidence of fault movement in the New

Har t ford Quadrangle area. Subsequently, Rodgers (1985)

interpreted the Hoosac and Moretown Formations to be juxtaposed

by a major thrust fault. The contact is interpreted to

represent a major tectonic boundary marking a major deep-seated

ductile fault related to the middle Ordovician Taconic Orogeny

(Rodgers, 1985; Merguerian, 1987). This feature, referred to as

Cameron ' s Line in Connecticut, is a northeast-southwest

curvilinear trending feature extending from southwestern

Connecticut into Massachusetts and southern Vermont where it is

referred to as the Whitcomb Summit Thrust (Stanley and

Ratcliffe, 1985).

2.3 Regional Hydrogeology

The RRDD#1 Landfill site is located within the Farmington River

Basin of north central Connecticut. In general, the three

aquifers used for water supply within the basin are till,

stratified drift, and bedrock (Handman et al, 1986). It also

should be noted that the alluvium in the valley of the West

Branch of the Farmington River is a significant aquifer in the

vicinity of the site. Much of the following information was

obtained from the Farmington River Basin report of the Water

Resources Inventory of Connecticut series prepared by the USGS

in cooperation with the CTDEP (1986).

The stratified drift, comprised of interbedded sand, silt, and

clay deposits, is the most productive of the three aquifers.

Stratified drift is present in valleys and lowlands and covers

approximately 22 percent of the Farmington River Basin (Handman

et al, 1986). Within the basin, stratified drift deposit

thicknesses average 100 feet, but exceed 400 feet in places.

2-5 TLU1218B91A90264

RJSS&O-NBLL.INC printed on recycled paper

The median yield from wells screened in stratified drift within

the basin has been reported to be 141 gallons per minute (gpm)

with individual yields ranging from 4 to 1400 gpm. The

stratified drift and alluvium in the West Branch of the

Farmington River east of the RRDD#1 Landfill were identified as

favorable areas for large-scale groundwater development due to

saturated thicknesses in excess of 40 feet (Handman et al,

1986).

Till deposits, consisting of unsorted or poorly sorted gravel,

sand, silt, and clay, cover nearly 75 percent of the Farmington

River Basin land surface (Handman et al, 1986). Till deposits

generally are unreliable sources of potable water and have

limited use as a domestic water source. Till aquifers are

rapidly affected by periods of low groundwater recharge and have

been largely abandoned as a water source in recent years. In

areas of greater saturated thicknesses, wells in till deposits

may produce yields of up to 3 gallons per minute (Handman et al,

1986).

Metamorphic bedrock underlies the western portion of the

Farmington River Basin. Most groundwater movement in bedrock is

dependent on fractures in the rock. Well yields in the bedrock

aquifer in the Farmington River Valley range from 0.1 to 200

gallons per minute, with a median yield of 5 gpm; ninety-five

percent of the wells completed in the metamorphic bedrock yield

at least 0.75 gpm (Handman et al, 1986).

2.3.1 Groundwater Quality Classification

Groundwater at the landfill site is classified as 6B/6A by the

CTDEP (1987). This designation indicates that the groundwater

may not be suitable for direct human consumption without

2-6 TLU1218B91A90264

RJSS&0-NBLL.INC primed on recycled paper

treatment due to waste discharges, spills or chemical leaks or

land use impacts.

The GB/GA classification encompasses the area north of the

Barkhamsted-New Hartford town line between the unnamed brook

west of the landfill and Route 44. The state's goal is to

return the groundwater to Class GA (CTDEP, 1987).

Groundwater in the area surrounding the landfill is classified

as GA (CTDEP, 1987). This designation applies to areas that are

within the influence of private and potential public water

supply wells. Class GA water is presumed suitable for direct

human consumption without treatment (CTDEP, 1987).

Groundwater in two areas less than one mile north of the

landfill are designated as GAA by the CTDEP (1987). This

classification is for "Ground waters tributary to public water

supply watersheds or within the area of influence of community

and non-community water supply wells. Presumed suitable for

direct human consumption without need for treatment. The

State's goal is to maintain drinking water quality." (CTDEP,

1987).

2.4 Surface Water Hydrology/Drainage

The Regional Refuse Disposal District #1 site in Barkhamsted,

Connecticut is located in the central portion of the 577 square

mile Farmington River Basin near the West Branch of the

Farmington River (Handman et al, 1986). The Farmington River

Basin lies within the Connecticut River Major Basin. Its source

is in the Berkshire Hills in Massachusetts and its lower limit

is in Tariffville, Connecticut. The Connecticut portion of the

2-7 TLW1218B91V90264

FUSS&O1VBLL.HMC printed on recycled paper

Farming-ton River Basin encompasses 435 square miles and has two

major divisions, the West and East branches, which join in New

Hartford to form the Farmington River (Handman et al, 1986).

The West Branch is the primary tributary of the Farmington

River. The East Branch of the Farmington River has been

contained by the Saville Dam and forms the Barkhamsted

Reservoir, a MDC water supply. Precipitation is the main source

of water entering the Farmington River Basin. The mean annual

precipitation in the Farmington River Basin is 48.42 inches per

year (Handman et al, 1986).

The RRDD#1 site is bisected by an unnamed brook which discharges

to the West Branch of the Farmington River approximately 0.5

miles southeast of the site. The majority of surface water

runoff from the site is channelled into the unnamed brook which

flows to the north-northeast through the site. The brook passes

through a culvert under U.S. Route 44 and turns south before

eventually discharging to the Farmington River. A small pond is

present west of the unnamed brook north of the railroad stone

arch culvert (Plate 1). This pond is not located on RRDD#1

property. During seasonal periods of heavy precipitation and

surface runoff, flow from the unnamed brook may enter this pond.

A second pond is present upstream of a beaver dam where the

unnamed brook travels along the Farmington River flood plain

northeast of the RRDD#1 Landfill and Route 44 (Plate 1).

The site has been divided into three drainage areas which are

described in the following sections.

2-8 TLV1218B91\90264

printed on recycled paper

Drainage Area Number One

Drainage area number one includes approximately 59 acres of

RRDD#1 property and encompasses the woodlands west and south of

the landfill landform, and the westerly and northwesterly

portions of the landform (Plate 2). The large woodland area

forms a valley, concentrating and directing runoff into the

unnamed brook which flows to the north. A sedimentation basin

at the southwest corner of the landfill collects runoff from the

south face of the landfill and discharges it to the unnamed

brook. Runoff from the west face of the landform and woods due

west of the landform contributes to the brook as it flows

northerly. The brook passes through a stone arch culvert at the

former railroad right-of-way and continues north-easterly.

Runoff from the northwest face of the landfill is collected in a

storm drain system which is located adjacent to the west end of

the maintenance office and garage building and discharges to a

ditch. This ditch flows northerly then northwesterly to the

unnamed brook. Just north of the point of convergence between

the ditch and the brook, the brook passes through a 48" pipe

under the former Greenwoods turnpike right-of-way and leaves the

RRDD#1 property.

Drainage Area Number Two

Drainage area number two is approximately 15.2 acres in area and

consists of the east face of the refuse landform, the southern

portion of the paved landfill access road, and the solid waste

recyclables transfer station (Plate 2). Runoff from the east

side of the top of the landfill flows to a drainage ditch which

is collected and piped to the southeast sedimentation basin.

2-9 TLH1218B91N90264

FUSS&O-TVELL.INC printed on recycled paper

The sedimentation basin discharges to the landfill access road

storm drain system which runs north along the access road

through the transfer station area. An approximately 4 foot deep

underdrain runs in an arcuate pattern along the northeast side

of the landfill as noted on Plate 2 and discharges to the storm

drain system. Additional storm drains in the transfer station

area also contribute to this storm drain system. The storm

drain system discharges to the unnamed brook via a 48-inch

diameter pipe located just south of the former Greenwood's

turnpike brook crossing.

Drainage Area Number Three

Drainage area number three consists of approximately 8.1 acres

of RRDD#1 property in the area north of the recycling and

transfer area including the northern portion of the paved

landfill access road (Plate 2).

Runoff in this area discharges directly to the brook or is

collected by the storm drain system in the site driveway or the

storm drain system on the Barkhamsted Town Garage property. The

driveway drainage system consists of catch basins in the gutters

and an underdrain at an approximate depth of four feet below

grade. This system discharges to the storm drainage system in

the Barkhamsted town garage lot which ultimately flows into the

unnamed brook adjacent to the Route 44 culverted crossing.

Surrounding Areas

The hillside west of the unnamed brook drains eastward toward

the brook. Storm runoff in the area east of drainage area two

drains eastward toward Route 44 and the Farmington River flood

plain. The area north of the Barkhmasted Town Garage and the

RRDDtl access road also drains northward toward Route 44 and the

Farmington River flood plain.

2-10 TIV121BB91\90264

printed on recycled paper RJSS&O1«U..»MC.

2.4.1 Surface Water Quality Classification

The unnamed brook originating southwest of the RRDD#1 Landfill

is designated as a Class B/A stream (CTDEP, 1987). This

designation means the stream may not be meeting Class A water

quality criteria or one or more Class A uses, such as a

potential drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitat,

agricultural and industrial supply, and recreational use. The

state goal for this stream is Class A (CTDEP, 1987).

The unnamed stream discharges to the West Branch of the

Farmington River, which flows southeast and is located

approximately 0.25 miles east of the landfill.

The river is designated as a Class Be surface water, thereby

indicating that the river is not a potable water supply, but is

presumed to meet water quality criteria which would support cold

water fisheries (CTDEP, 1987).

2.5 Potential Receptors

The following section is intended to identify and briefly

describe potential receptors, both human and environmental, that

may be affected by the existing conditions at the RRDD#1

Landfill.

2.5.1 Human Receptors

The RRDD#1 Landfill is a public landfill and waste transfer

facility. During open landfill hours the general public may be

potent ia l ly exposed to landfill air emissions and may

potentially come in contact with landfill leachate and

contaminated soils.

2-11 TLV1218B9U90264

printed on recycled paper RJSS&Oi«LL.«MC.

The paved recycling and transfer station is the area most

frequently accessed by the general public; however, the general

public also has access to portions of the active landfill and

other unpaved areas of the site. Bulky wastes are dropped off

at the working face on top of the landfill. Stumps, brush, and

leaves are deposited by the public in areas designated for these

purposes southeast of the active landfill. Scrap metal and

appliances are brought to the facility and placed by the public

in designated locations in the unpaved area approximately 100

feet west of the transfer and recycling area.

RRDD#1 employees responsible for performing site operations at

the landfill have access to all areas of the landfill and may be

exposed to landfill air emissions for periods of longer duration

than the public. Therefore, employees have a higher potential

likelihood of coming into contact with landfill leachate and

contaminated soils during routine site operations.

Unauthorized access to the landfill is discouraged by a chain

link fence located along the access road and northern site

boundary. However, access may be gained to the landfill by foot

from areas east, west and south of the landfill. Access to the

site from Johnycake Lane in New Hartford by four wheel drive

vehicle is possible, albeit difficult.

Connecticut Department of Health Services (DOHS), Farmington

Valley Health District Office and CTDEP Natural Resource Center

files indicate that nearly all residences in the vicinity of the

landfill have individual domestic water supply wells. Well

completion reports on file with these agencies indicate that

most wells produce from the bedrock aquifer.

2-12 TLW121SB91\90264

FUSS&0-NBLL.INC. printed on recycled paper

The average bedrock well depth in the vicinity of the site is

approximately 250 feet. The well completion reports generally

were recorded by property owner at the time of installation and

are difficult to correlate with current property owners.

Residences along Johnycake Lane in New Hartford may be serviced

by or have access to the New Hartford public water supply;

however, these residences may still use domestic supply wells

previously installed. No public water supply system exists in

Barkhamsted in the vicinity of the landfill; groundwater is the

sole potable water sources.

Figure 2 depicts locations of public or community supply wells

in the area surrounding the RRDD#1 Landfill as identified from

the CTDEP Atlas of Public Water Supply Sources and Drainage

Basins (1982). Ridgewood Apartments and Pleasant Valley

Apartments water supply sources lie within one mile of the

RRDD#1 landfill site. Other than the Landfill and Barkhamsted

Town Garage wells, no public or private wells are known to have

been impacted by the landfill. The Landfill and Town Garage

currently use bottled water for drinking and water trucked in

from an off-site source for sanitary purposes.

The alluvial deposits in the West Branch of the Farmington River

floodplain east of the RRDDtfl landfill have been identified as a

potential large-scale water supply source (Handman et al, 1986).

2.5.2 Environmental Receptors

Groundwater and surface water at or in the vicinity of the

RRDD#1 landfill are potential environmental receptors that may

be affected by the existing conditions at the landfill.

Groundwater is a particularly sensitive receptor due to the fact

that it is the primary potable water supply source in the

vicinity of the landfill as previously discussed.

2-13 TLW1218B91\90264

RJSS&OTCLL.HMC. printed on recycled paper

MAP REFERENCE:

MODIFIED FROM C T D E P 1982 ATLAS OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SOURCES AND DRAINAGE BASINS OF CONNECTICUT

IOCX)' 0' 2OOO' 4000 6OOO'

SCALE

FIGURE Z

FUSS&O'NBLL M A N C H E S T E R , C O N N E C T I C U T

POTABLE WATER SUPPLY MAP RRDDwl LANDFILL SITE INVESTIGATION

REGIONAL REFUSE DISPOSAL DISTRICT* I

ROUTE 44 BARKi-iAMSTED, CT

MO oQ-264 OATE DEC 1991 S C A L E N T S

The unnamed brook west of the solid waste landform flows

northeast into the West Branch of the Farmington River flood

plain prior to discharging to the river itself. The water

quality in the brook may be adversely affected by any upgradient

landfill impact.

The ecosystem at and surrounding the RRDD#1 landfill is a

potential environmental receptor. The flora and terrestrial and

aquatic fauna in and adjacent to the unnamed brook in the

vicinity of the landfill may be sensitive to any deterioration

in surface water quality. Effects on fauna or organisms may be

passed on to consumptors at higher levels of the food chain. It

should also be noted that the Farmington River is being

considered for designation as a wild and scenic river by the US

Department of Interior's National Park Service (1989).

2-14 TLW1218B91\90264

FUSS8.CrNELL.INC .printed on recycled paper

3.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW

A historical review was performed to identify documented waste

disposal activities performed at the RRDDtfl landfill. As part

of this review, documents at the landfill, CTDEP, and the

Barkhamsted Town Hall were reviewed for information regarding

waste handling and disposal practices. Additionally, interviews

with persons familiar with landfill operations in the late

1970's and early 1980's were conducted.

3.1 Landfill Operational History Summary

The Regional Refuse Disposal District One (RRDD#1) was formed in

May 1970 by the communities of Barkhamsted, Colebrook, New

Hartford, and Winchester for the purpose of creating a solid

waste disposal facility for the member towns. The District

received CTDEP solid waste disposal permit #005-2L on September

21, 1972 and became operational in April, 1974. The solid waste

disposal permit was amended on December 16, 1983 to also allow

operation as a sanitary landfill. Municipal solid waste was

disposed of at the landfill from April, 1974 until August 1,

1988. In February, 1988 the landfill received permission from

the CTDEP to construct a regional waste transfer station. The

waste transfer station was constructed according to plan; since

August 1, 1988 the landfill has only disposed of bulky and

non-processable waste, with the exception of a brief period

during November and December, 1988 when the CRRA mid-Connecticut

waste-to-energy plant was inoperable.

3-1 TLW1218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OTJBLL.INC.

Daily operations at the landfill were supervised by the

following Landfill Administrators during the periods indicated

below:

1974 to 1981 - Wesley Ramstein

1981 to 1984 - Alfredo J. Nanni

1984 to 1985 - Jay Louden

1985 to present - James Hart

3.2 File Reviews

This historical record investigation has included a review of

both public CTDEP and Town of Barkhamsted files. In some cases,

specific public documents have been referenced by date within

the text. A partially annotated working reference list of these

materials and all other documents reviewed during this

investigation is presented in Appendix B.

3.2.1 CTDEP File Review

"~~ CTDEP files containing information which is pertinent to the

waste disposal history of RRDD#1 are discussed chronologically

by CTDEP office below. When documentation was encountered in

more than one department, references to that information are

restricted to the office responsible for the original

documentation.

3.2.1.1 Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) Files

Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) files relating to operations

at RRDD #1 were reviewed on the following dates: June 18, July

10, and July 11, 1991. RRDD#1 documentation on file dated back

to 1969; however, most of the file was concerned with activities

conducted in the 1980s.

3-2 TLW1218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&ONHU..INC.

1970 to 1979

Regional Refuse Disposal District One acquired CTDEP solid waste

permit #005-2L on September 21, 1972, based upon operation and

management plans developed by W.G. Weaver and Associates (1971

and 1972). However, many details of this plan were apparently

not implemented in the final landfill facility construction.

For example, facility access roads depicted on the Weaver plan

do not correspond with those observed today or in aerial

photographs of the site from 1975. Although the main access

road proposed on this plan intersects Route 44 at approximately

the same location as the current landfill entrance, the proposed

road swings west and enters the landfill facility from the

north. On this early plan, the main road terminates just north

of the northern toe of the landform, and there are no access

roads to the top of the landform.

Similarly, facility structures at RRDD#1 were not constructed in

the locations specified on the Weaver operational plans. They

were, however, constructed in the same general area along the

northern toe of the landform. The following structures are

specified on these early landfill operational plans: a control

house, scale, landfill operation building. However, a permanent

scale has not been utilized at RRDD#1. Plans and specifications

for the construction of these facility buildings were submitted

to the CTDEP on September 21, 1973.

The Weaver plans indicated that landfilling was to be limited to

a 24.7 acre area bounded on the west by a 50 foot buffer along

unnamed brook, the town line to the south and the eastern end of

the railroad right-of-way on the east. Only the bulky waste

disposal area, referred to as the "stump dump", was separated

3-3 TLW1218C91X90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OTJBLL.INC.

out from this main disposal area. This bulky waste area was

situated north of the landfill operation building, corresponding

to a currently paved area between the landfill office and the

transfer station. In addition, a "fluids pit", 20 feet in

diameter and 9 feet deep, is depicted in cross section on these

plans. The intended location and use of this pit is not

specified, however. In the main landfilling area, the natural

terrain was to be cut back to form a series of two percent grade

terraces. Cells, separated by six inches of cover, were then to

be constructed on these terraces. The plan indicates that

landfilling was to commence in an area corresponding to the

western edge of the northern toe of the current landform. From

this point, filling was to continue east along the front of the

landform and then south. Based upon the Weaver plans, then, the

oldest landfilled material would be located at the western end

of the northern landform toe. As later discussed, however, this

filling sequence was not implemented during the early years of

landfill operation. Available historical records do not reveal

the precise location of early waste disposal areas.

Identification of areas which may have been utilized for waste

disposal based upon aerial photographs from 1975 is discussed in

Section 3.4.1.

The first amendment to the facility's solid waste permit was

made on January 17, 1974. This amendment incorporated

modifications to the service area and entrance road designs as

well as the stump and brush disposal area. Both of these

modifications were specified in the revised operation and

management plan dated January 2, 1974. The amended permit

excluded all wastes except for stumps and brush from a fifty

foot wide area between the landfill and the unnamed stream. No

refuse was permitted to come in direct contact with the unnamed

brook, however.

3-4 TLW1218C9U90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OTVJOJ..BMC.

In 1978, RRDD#1 purchased property to the south of the site and

applied to the state for landfill expansion. The application to

expand the landfill was denied on October 7, 1981.

General Landfill Operations

CTDEP solid waste landfill inspection reports dated between 1974

and 1979 have been the primary source of information concerning

landfill operation during this time period. Based upon these

records, a lack of adequate daily landfill cover was viewed by

the CTDEP as a problem during the early years of landfill

operation. Wastes most frequently noted to be left uncovered

were bulky wastes and brush. In addition, ponding of water on

the landfill itself appears to have been a problem. Leachate

resulting from infiltration of water through the refuse was

observed at the landfill as early as April, 1975. CTDEP

documentation indicates that both brush and bulky wastes were

observed encroaching upon the buffer area between the landfill

and the stream during this time period.

Industrial Waste Handling

Solid waste unit landfill inspectors refer to the acceptance of

unspecified industrial wastes through mid-1977, although no

detailed description of the handling of these wastes was

provided. Two specific types of industrial waste identified at

the landfill during this period of operation were metal

grindings sludge, apparently received from several local

industries, and keratin, a food processing waste. Dry metal

grinding sludge was used in combination with dirt for daily

cover and appears to have been used on landfill access roads.

3-5 TLV1218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&O1VO-L.INC.

Twice during 1975, inspection reports noted metal sludges to be

left uncovered. Keratin, a by-product of soup stock production,

is one of the sources of disagreeable odor emanating from the

landfill. The strong odor of this material was mentioned in one

landfill inspection report from this time period.

According to CTDEP landfill inspection reports, a temporary

industrial waste pit was operated at RRDDtfl during the first

year of landfill operation. Former landfill employees have

indicated that the State played an active role in the siting and

operation of the pit, however the duration of operation and

precise location of this pit were not documented in CTDEP

files. There are construction details for a fluids pit on

original landfill plans by W.G. Weaver & Associates (7/27/72,

Sheet 4), but the intended location of the pit was not

identified. The pit may correspond with an "abandoned chemical

pit" (12/24/83, 8/16/74) which may have been operated in the

vicinity of the barrel crushing area north of the landfill.

Reference has also been made to a chemical waste pit located

"near the existing metal grinding waste cell" in 1974 (5/1/88).

However, metal grindings appear to have been disposed of in a

variety of locations at the landfill. These include the

southern end of the landform, north of the toe of the landform

in the vicinity of the stone arch, and on roadbeds east of the

landform. Based upon this fact, positive identification of the

location of the chemical pit in relation to the areas of metal

grindings disposal has not been conclusive.

3-6 TLV1218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper RJSS&O'NHL»..INC

""

—s

Little information is available concerning the type of materials

introduced into the industrial waste pit. Based upon the first

RRDDtfl landfill inspection report dated June 26, 1974, this

temporary pit did receive unauthorized waste oils. The

remaining elements of the waste stream entering this pit were

not identified in this early report, however. Other CTDEP

documentation has indicated that a rectangular chemical pit in

operation during the 1970s received "oily sludge with metal

grindings and degreasers" (5/1/88). Also according to this

report, 50 percent of the barrels received contained an

u n s p e c i f i e d a m o u n t o f c h l o r i n a t e d h y d r o c a r b o n s o r

methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) (5/1/88).

The CTDEP Solid Waste Management Unit was actively involved in

evaluating those industrial wastes being accepted at the

landfill. There is documentation of the rejection of wastes

such as cutting oils from landfill disposal at RRDD#1 during

this time period (9/25/74, 9/30/74). In addition, the State

solicited proposals for preliminary development plans for a

regional industrial waste handling facility (10/25/74).

However, these plans do not appear to have been implemented.

1980 to 1989

RRDDtfl did not notify under RCRA in 1980, and consequently is

not a permitted hazardous waste storage or disposal facility.

In 1981, the CTDEP required RRDDtfl to develop an operation and

management plan better reflecting operations and upon which a

modified solid waste permit could be founded (6/6/81). A permit

modification was made on December 16, 1983, based upon the

updated Operation and Management Plan produced by Roger H.

Whitney, Inc. in 1982 and updated in 1983.

3-7 TLW1218C91\90264

FUSS&OTVBLL.INC. printed on recycled paper

Unlike the proposed plan by W.G. Weaver and Associates, the

Roger H. Whitney Inc. Operation and Management plan reveals the

positions of landfill access roads and facility buildings as

they may be observed at the site today. The intersection of the

main entrance road with Route 44 is in approximately the same

position as in the earlier plan; however, from that point it is

depicted as swinging to the south and then curving to enter the

landfill from the southeast. One maintenance/garage building,

one guard house and one control building are depicted on these

plans. All of these structures are located on the northern end

of the site in their current positions.

Whitney plans indicate that an unimproved access road to the top

of the landform was in use prior to 1983. This road is depicted

as entering from the northern face of the landform, west of the

landfill maintenance building, and was not indicated on earlier

operation and management plans (11/72). By 1983, a paved access

road to the southern end of the landform had been constructed to

replace the unimproved road. This road is the current access

road which extends approximately 450 feet southwest from the

~" guard house along the eastern edge of the landform. The

pavement ends at approximately the midpoint of the eastern side

of the landform; however, an unimproved extension of this road

continues approximately 250 feet to the south where it splits

into two segments. One segment curves around the southern end

of the landform, while the other is depicted to continue an

additional 150 feet to the south. The Whitney Operation and

Management Plan indicated that the access road depicted on the

northwest end of the landform was to be blocked by solid waste

landfilling at the northern end of the landform.

3-8 TLW1218C9U90264

FUSS&OTJBLL.INC .printed on recycled paper

According to the RRDDtfl plans designed by Roger H. Whitney, Inc.

solid waste landfilling at RRDD#1 was to be limited to an area

bounded by the unnamed brook buffer on the west, the town line

to the south, the main access road to the east and the former

railroad right-of-way to the north. Unlike the previous plan,

the Whitney plan allowed for a 1000 foot buffer zone between the

landfill and the Yahne domestic well to the east on Route 44.

Consequently, the total area available for landfilling was

significantly reduced to approximately 10 acres. Landfilling

was to be conducted by means of cells measuring 9 feet high and

35 feet wide. Initially, cells were to be constructed at the

northern end of the landfill from east to west, while rows were

to be constructed from south to north. The direction of row

construction was to be reversed following the completion of the

fourth lift, however.

Whitney operational plans show several waste disposal areas at

RRDD#1. This plan reveals an industrial waste cell at the

southern end of the landfill. Metal grindings on an unmapped

access road on the eastern side of the land form were scheduled

to be relocated into this cell once it was completed. As

detailed on Sheet 7 of the Whitney plan, cover material in the

metal grindings cell was to consist of a soil-lime mixture in

order to raise the pH and thereby minimize metal leaching to the

subsurface. In addition, the plan suggests that metal sludges

could be mixed with cover materials in the cells, due to the

fact that these materials were determined to be "nonhazardous"

(11/82).

One CTDEP notice of violation (NOV) has been issued to RRDD#1

since the start of operations in 1974. NOV # PC-021 was issued

to RRDD#1 on July 17, 1981 in response to inadequate application

of daily cover to the bulky waste and stump disposal areas.

3-9 TLV1218C9U90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OTVBLL.IIMC.

The Town of Barkhamsted Conservation Commission, motivated by

concerns that such violations of the landfill permit were

impacting downgradient groundwater quality, brought suit against

the landfill (5/20/81, 6/10/81, 11/16/82). A legal stipulation

was subsequently brought against RRDD#1, which required the

landfill to monitor for current environmental impacts and to

take immediate steps to address potential groundwater and

surface water degradation (5/16/83). A groundwater monitoring

program including a total of seven wells was consequently

instituted at the landfill during 1983. Little specific

information was available concerning the implementation of this

groundwater monitoring program. Inspection reports document the

installation of monitoring wells by September, 1983. In early

1984, the facility was one quarter behind in the groundwater

monitoring schedule due to a dispute with the consultant

(6/27/84). However, the program appears to have been on

schedule again by October of that year (10/15/84). The

groundwater monitoring program was later revised in accordance

with a minor permit amendment dated April 28, 1987.

General Landfill Operations

Solid waste inspection reports from the 1980fs referred to many

of the same operational problems noted during during the 1970s.

These operational difficulties included poor cover of bulky

waste areas and ponding in refuse disposal areas. In addition,

brush and bulky wastes were observed to encroach upon the buffer

on the western side of the landform, sometimes coming in direct

contact with the unnamed brook. In June, 1980 the bulky waste

area encompassed approximately three acres on the northwestern

end of the site (6/6/80).

3-10 TLV1218C91X90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OtsO-L.INC.

Industrial Waste Handling

The handling of industrial wastes at RRDD#1 was infrequently

mentioned in inspection reports from the early to mid-1980's.

Documentation of industrial waste handling, when available, was

lacking in details of the specific manner of handling and the

type of materials involved. In 1980, for example, it was noted

that RRDD#1 was trying to handle these materials in an

"acceptable manner" (8/22/80). Although there are references to

inadequate handling of these wastes in early 1981 (2/27/81a),

later in that same year Peter Carpenter of the CTDEP noted that

industrial wastes were "being handled correctly now" (8/25/81).

Yet, during an on-site inspection in 1981, CTDEP representatives

observed an unpermitted hauler leaving industrial waste

materials at the landfill (6/17/91). An inspection report dated

March 16, 1983 indicated that no "industrial or hazardous"-type

wastes were present at the site at all (3/16/83).

As previously mentioned, a cell for metal grindings wastes was

specified in operational plans developed by Roger H. Whitney,

Inc. in 1982 and revised in 1983. CTDEP documentation indicates

that sometime after 1983 the cell was moved approximately 50

feet west of its original location (5/1/88). A new metal

grindings cell was necessary by mid-1984 (6/15/84, 7/16/85) and

some metal grindings were apparently stored in 55 gallon drums

on site (l/17/84a). In 1985, a consultant reported that the

exact location of the cell was not easily identified due to site

development since the last site survey (8/19/85). Other reports

indicate that metal grindings sludge was sometimes received

heated and piles exceeded 10-15 feet in height (6/4/81).

3-11 TLW1218C91\90264

PUSS&OTVBLL.INC. printed on recycled paper

1990 to 1991

On February 27, 1990, RRDDtfl received a minor amendment to its

solid waste permit (#005-2L) allowing the landfill to accept

dewatered sewer sludge from the Winsted POTW (2/27/90c).

CTDEP Enforcement Order #666 was issued to RRDD#1 on March 7,

1990, due to the presence of groundwater contamination at the

site (2/27/90a). This order was modified on August 9, 1990.

Industrial Waste Handling

Little information was on file with the CTDEP SWMU concerning

current handling of industrial wastes at the landfill. One

complaint was made to the State during in the early 1990's,

however, concerning what appeared to be potentially hazardous

wastes being deposited at the site (1/23/90, l/24/90a, l/24/90b,

2/7/90). This material, which was subsequently determined to be

non-hazardous, was brought to the landfill to mix with soil for

use as daily cover.

3.2.1.2 Hazardous Waste Materials Unit (HWMU) Files

CTDEP HWMU documentation related to RRDD#1 was reviewed on July

11, 1991. Materials dated between 1976 and 1988 were on file

at this time.

1970 to 1979

The chemistry of metal grindings sludge at the landfill was

investigated by the Hazardous Waste Management Unit as early as

1976. Precision Ball and TRW were identified as two of the

3-12 TLW1218C91\90264

FUSS&O*NBLL.HMC. printed on recycled paper

sources of "wet sludge" being disposed of at the landfill at

that time (12/13/79). CTDEP internal correspondence indicates

that these materials were being disposed of separately from the

refuse at the "rear" end of the landfill (12/13/79). Samples of

metal grindings sludge collected during this time period

revealed elevated concentrations of metals, particularly

chromium (4/15/76, 5/1/88). Several hydrocarbon compounds were

identified as well, of which chlorinated compounds predominated

(6/27/79).

1980 to 1989

In early 1980, the HWMU collected samples of dried sludge from

an unspecified location at the landfill. Sample results

indicated the presence of both metals and hydrocarbons,

including benzene, hexane, pentane and toluene (5/6/80). Later

during that year, the HWMU investigated piles of industrial

waste at the "upper end" of the landfill (8/7/80). A HWMU

,i~x inspection report dated August 7, 1980 listed two different

types of industrial wastes within these piles. The inspector

identified these two materials as an oily grinding waste and a

white powdery substance. According to the landfill operator,

the first material was received from Precision Ball (8/7/80).

CTDEP documentation refers to a complaint made concerning sudden

fires related to this sludge, however the original complaint was

not encountered in CTDEP records (6/15/81). The latter

substance was a flammable lacquer (nitrocellulose) received from

the Hitchcock Chair Company (8/7/80). The investigation of

industrial wastes handled at RRDD#1 was apparently curtailed due

to CTDEP administrative issues (3/27/81). The following year,

however, there was renewed departmental concern that the metal

sludge wastes were hazardous (2/9/81). RRDD#1 was formally

requested by the CTDEP to eliminate hazardous wastes from their

3-13 TLW1218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&O-NHU..INC.

facility as well as to update their site plans in order to

correctly describe site operations (3/27/81). Consequently,

additional investigations into the types and origins of

industrial wastes at the landfill were initiated (3/27/81).

These investigations identified two other local industries, TRW

and JPS Manufacturing, which were disposing of industrial waste

at the landfill (6/4/81). The first company produced a heated

sludge, while the second produced tumbling waste (6/4/81).

CTDEP laboratory analyses of the metal grinding wastes revealed

high concentrations of metals. However, based on analytical

results, the department concluded that the sludges were not

characteristically hazardous (7/27/81). Furthermore, CTDEP

investigations did not determine the cause of spontaneous

combustion observed within the industrial waste pit (7/27/81).

There was some speculation that combustion may have resulted

from the mixture of two types of sludge in the pit (6/17/81).

Due to the fact that the metal grinding wastes were not

, characteristically hazardous, they were formally approved for

landfill disposal at RRDDtfl, provided that they were kept

~~" separate from other refuse. The CTDEP further recommended that

these materials continue to be disposed of at the southern end

of the landfill (7/27/81).

Two citizen complaints (#268 and #381) were made to the CTDEP

against RRDD#1 in 1983. Both of these complaints concerned

presence of a large quantity of drums with unknown contents at

the landfill. In April, 1983 a total of 25 drums were observed

distributed between two locations at the landfill: at the

southeast edge of the landfill in the vicinity of the "oak

tree", and along the northeastern toe (northwest of the landfill

3-14 TLWl218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper RJSS&OTVJBLL.HMC.

building and west of the metal scrap pile). The drums were

discovered by a Town of Barkhamsted official following a report

of fumes being emitted from the unnamed brook (4/29/83a). The

complaint indicated that "noxious" odors emanated from the drums

as well. No such odor was noted during the subsequent CTDEP

drum inspection; however, two of the drums were noted to be

leaking (4/29/83a).

Fred Nanni, Administrator of RRDD#1, informed CTDEP inspectors

that the drums contained used motor oil which was stockpiled in

drums on site prior to being sold to the Town of Torrington as

fuel (4/29/83g). A composite sample of this material, which

appeared to be oil, was collected from four of the drums in each

area. Sample analyses revealed that the drummed liquids had a

low flash point (77 degrees C), as well as relatively high lead

and cadmium concentrations (4/29/83f,g). After inspecting and

sampling the drums, the CTDEP requested that the landfill

relocate them to the paved area of the site.

Complaint #381 was made in November, 1983 following an

observation of in excess of 30 drums at the landfill, some of

which appeared to still contain liquids. CTDEP records indicate

that these drums were found in close proximity to the scrap

metal area, north of the toe of the landfill and northwest of

the landfill garage. The drums were scheduled for crushing, a

landfill operation which was apparently centered in this area of

the site (Undated, E. Flores). Three generators were identified

as the source of these drums: Union Pin Co., Grayarc, and

Pitney Bowes (Undated, E. Flores). Approximately twenty of the

drums, reportedly containing styrene from Union Pin Co., were

removed from the site with CTDEP approval before investigators

arrived. Furthermore, there was some question as to why the

Union Pin drums with more than a small amount of styrene would

3-15 TLW1218C91A90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OtVBLL.INC.

have been delivered to the landfill in the first place, as that

waste material was generally sold at a profit (Undated, E.

Flores) The following types of labels were present on some of

the remaining drums: Hubbard Hall Guard Solvent—flammable

liquid, hazardous waste, and photopolymer resin (ll/17/83a). A

representative of Pitney Bowes indicated that the materials

contained within the drums were not hazardous (Undated, E.

Flores). Although some of the drums carried insignia from

Grayarc, there is no record of subsequent CTDEP conversations

with representatives from that company.

The CTDEP collected several samples from the drums, the soil

around the drums and the waste oil collection drums. The latter

set of samples were collected in order to determine whether

small amounts of industrial/hazardous liquids may have typically

been removed from in-coming drums prior to drum crushing

(ll/17/83a). Drums with a small amount of liquid were

frequently crushed without being emptied (Undated, E. Flores).

Following investigations into Complaint #381, RRDDtl was

formally notified by the CTDEP that the landfill was not to

accept hazardous waste for storage or for disposal (1/10/84).

This event sparked a federal investigation of the site which is

described in a later section of the text (6/24/84).

Waste oil has been accepted at the landfill throughout its

operation. As previously discussed, this material was

stockpiled on site in 55-gallon drums in the early 1980's prior

to being picked up by a waste hauler. By 1986, landfill

operations were modified to include two 275 gallon waste oil

storage tanks, located near the recycling building (8/25/86).

In addition, batteries have been accepted by the landfill for

recycling since at least 1985 (2/8/85b). Handling of both waste

oil and batteries for recycling was reported to and acknowledged

by the CTDEP (9/06/86).

3-16 TLW1218C91X90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OTVBU..INC.

3.2.1.3 Superfund Files

Superfund files relating to RRDD#1 (CERCLIS No. CTD980732333)

were reviewed on July 11, 1991. Documentation on file was dated

between April, 1985 and June, 1991; however, most of these files

were dated 1990 and 1991.

USEPA investigations of the RRDDtl landfill began in 1984

following the discovery of a large number of drums at the site

in late 1983 (complaint #381) (6/24/84). This investigation

appears to have been curtailed in October, 1984; however the

reason for the halt in these investigations is not documented

(7/17/87). Furthermore, the results of these early

investigations were not available for review at CTDEP.

Federal investigations resumed at RRDD#1 with a potential

hazardous waste site perimeter inspection which was conducted by

NUS Corporation on March 26, 1987. The site received a hazard

ranking score (HRS) of 52.00. This score was later lowered to

38.05 to reflect the low population density and the fact that

some of this area is served by public water supply (8/23/88,

7/31/91).

On June 21, 1988, RRDD#1 was nominated for inclusion on the

National Priorities List. This status was confirmed on October

4, 1989.

3.2.1.4 Water Compliance Division Files

On June 18, 1991, an initial attempt was made to view files

related to RRDD#1 at the Water Compliance Division. Files

related to the site were missing at that time, however. These

files were reviewed during a subsequent visit to this department

on July 25, 1991.

3-17 TLV1218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OWQJ..INC.

Documentation on file with this department is primarily

concerned with leachate impacts to domestic wells adjacent to

the landfill. In early 1981, the department was requested by

the HWMU to evaluate the ' possibility that elevated zinc

concentrations in the Yahne well could be the result of leachate

contamination (1/23/81). Sample analyses at that domestic well

failed to reveal other metals and volatile organic compounds which are commonly associated with leachate contamination,

however. Consequently, it was concluded that the landfill was

not the most probable source zinc at that location (2/13/81).

Late in 1982, sampling conducted by the Farmington Valley Health

District revealed that the RRDD#1 facility well contained low

concentrations of the following hydrocarbons: trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), benzene and

butane/methane/propane (ll/17/82a). It was subsequently recommended that the water not be consumed (ll/17/82a); RRDDtfl has utilized water obtained from off-site for drinking

purposes. Groundwater from the facility well was utilized for

other facility operations until March, 1990. Facility

operations since that time have utilized water obtained from Winsted, Connecticut which is stored in a water tank on site.

3.2.1.5 Oil and Chemical Spills Division Files

Files dating from 1976 to the present were reviewed at the Oil

and Chemical Spill Division on July 25, 1991. This research,

which encompassed both Barkhamsted and New Hartford, revealed no

documented releases or complaints related to this facility.

3.2.1.6 Underground Storage Tank Files

CTDEP underground storage tank (UST) files for RRDD#1 were i

reviewed on July 25, 1991. The only information on file at that

time was the first RRDD#1 underground storage tank notification

3-18 TLU1218C91\90264

• * printed on recycled paper RJSS&O'NHLL.INC.

dated April 29, 1986. One UST, a 4000-gallon fuel oil tank,

was being used by the facility at the time. The documented tank

location was the northwestern corner of the maintenance garage.

Although this notification indicates that the tank was scheduled

to be replaced with a 2000 gallon "anode" protected tank in

mid-1986, there are no subsequent notifications on file.

3.2.2 RRDDftl Files

Files stored at the RRDD#1 Landfill office were reviewed for

information regarding landfill operational practices, waste

disposal records, and other pertinent information. Other than

minutes of RRDD#1 board meetings, documentation is essentially

limited to consultant's reports and CTDEP correspondence already

on file with the CTDEP.

Landfill records from the period prior to the incorporation of

RRDD#1 until 1983 are relatively sparse and are generally

related to landfill administration. Limited information \ } regarding waste haulers and companies disposing of material at

the landfill is recorded; however, documentation of the nature

and amount of waste disposed of at the landfill is generally

lacking.

Pertinent information documented from 1983 to the present

consists largely of consultant's reports, water quality results,

and correspondence with the USEPA and CTDEP which is also on

file with the CTDEP. Legal records document the litigation

between the Town of Barkhamsted and the landfill regarding

infringement of waste disposal along the unnamed brook on the

west edge of the landfill landform and regarding general

landfill operational practices and surface water and groundwater

contamination.

3-19 TLU121BC91\90264

printed on recycled paper FUSS&OISBLL.INC.

A limited amount of significant information is available in the

RRDDtl files which were not available in the CTDEP files.

— Minutes of a 08/19/74 board meeting discuss problems with an

industrial waste pit. The initial location of the pit is

vaguely referred as being on the east side of the landfill.

However, due to groundwater infiltration this pit was apparently

never used and was subsequently relocated to an area nearer the

landfill office facility, although no specific location was

described. Approval for the disposal of asbestos at the

landfill was granted by the DEP on two occasions, 5/11/87 and

6/8/87. A copy of a 1983 site operation plan was marked with

the locations of areas previously known to be metal grinding

disposal areas; however, on this plan an additional area north

of the northwest toe of the landfill was also indicated to have

been a metal disposal area.

3.2.3 Barkhamsted Town File Review

Files concerning the RRDD#1 Landfill were reviewed at the

-J Barkhamsted Town Hall on August 15, 1991 for relevant

information. Records on file with the town primarily consisted

of documents available from other sources. Extensive records

documenting the 1983 litigation and court settlement between the

town and RRDD#1 were on file, but provided no additional

information pertinent to waste disposal at the landfill.

3.3 Personal Interviews

A meeting between Fuss & O'Neill, Inc, personnel and John Raabe,

PhD., was conducted at the RRDD#1 landfill on August 8, 1991.

Mr. Raabe provided information regarding the extent and nature

of landfill operations during the early 1980s.

3-20 TLW1218C91\90264

FUSS8.OTJBLL.INC .printed on recycled paper

As part of the court settlement agreement between RRDDtfl and the

Town of Barkhamsted, Mr. Raabe, a geologist with Geologic

Services, Inc., supervised the installation of the initial six

groundwater monitoring wells at the site.

Mr. Raabe recalled that during the period of his work at the

landfill (mid 1983 to early 1984) that operation of the landfill

was not systematic and was characterized by multiple working

faces and numerous disposal areas within the landfill. He also

recalled that several springs on the northeast side of the

landfill created operational difficulties and that several

productive springs were present prior to the construction of the

landfill.

A metal grinding waste disposal area near the northwest toe of

the landfill adjacent to the unnamed brook and former railroad

stone arch bridge, the location of the former drum crushing

area, and the location of "the old oak tree" near the southeast

corner of the landfill were confirmed at the site and on aerial

photographs and maps by Mr. Raabe. He noted that metal grinding

wastes were used to construct temporary road beds on and

adjacent to the landfill. Although Mr. Raabe emphasized that he

could not confirm or deny the existence of such a feature, he

recalled rumors of an alleged liquid chemical waste pit in the

vicinity of the northeastern portion of landfill that reportedly

was used during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Mr. James Hart, the current RRDD#1 Landfill Administrator, was

periodically consulted during this investigation as well. Mr.

Hart was the Town of Barkhamsted First Selectman during the

litigation between the town and the landfill initiated in the

early 1980s. Mr. Hart became the Landfill Administrator in 1985

and was familiar with the condition of the landfill at that

time.

3-21 TLW1218C91\90264

printed on recycled pa per FUSS&OTVBLL.INC.

Mr. Hart provided confirmation of the "old oak tree" location

and pointed out the area to the east of the landfill where metal

grindings had been used for road construction. Additionally,

Mr. Hart provided useful chronology of activities conducted at

the landfill during his tenure as Administrator.

3.4 Aerial Photograph Analysis

To aid in the identification of previous waste disposal

activities and locations at the RRDDtfl Landfill, a review of

historical aerial photography of the site was conducted. Both

private and public sources were contacted to identify existing

aerial photography of the site during the period between 1974

and 1985 at a suitable scale for analysis. Sources contacted

included regional and national USDA Soil Conservation Service

offices, the Connecticut DEP Natural Resource Center, the USGS

Earth Science and Information and EROS Data Centers, and private

aerial photography companies and repositories.

Identified sources of aerial photography of suitable scale from

the desired time period were limited to Aerographics, Inc.,

Bohemia, New York, who provided state-wide coverage for 1980 and

1986 and Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc., Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, who provided similar coverage for 1975. Aerial

photographs enlarged to an approximate scale of 1"-100' were

obtained from these sources and are included as Plates 5-7.

Reproduction may obscure or hinder interpretation of

identifiable fractures appearing on the photographic

reproductions.

Following Fuss & O'Neill's analysis, a copy of the USEPA

December, 1988 aerial photography site analysis report of the

landfill prepared by the USEPA's Environmental Photographic

Interpretation Service was reviewed (USEPA, 1988).

3-22 TLW1218C91\90264

FUSS&OTVBLL.INC. printed on recycled paper

3.4.1 1975 Aerial Photograph

The March 28, 1975 aerial photograph enlargement (approx. scale

1"-100') obtained from Keystone Aerial Surveys depicts the

RRDD#1 landfill approximately one year after the facility began

operation (Plate 5).

In this photograph the active landfill area covers a much

smaller area than it does presently. The channel of the unnamed

brook west of the landfill appears to have been altered from its

natural course.

Waste disposal activities appear to have been restricted to the

active landfill area. The area to the southwest of the landfill

appears to be a borrow area from which landfill cover is

excavated. A large pile of tires and a roll-off container are

present approximately one hundred feet west of the landfill

office building. An unvegetated graded area is present

northwest of the landfill building, although there is no

evidence suggestive of waste disposal in this area. No other

unusual features or activities were observed in this photograph.

USEPA's analysis of the same source photograph (USEPA, 1988) at

an approximate scale of ln=175' identified possible drums near

the tire pile and scattered across the landfill. Two pools of

standing liquid present near the railroad stone arch culvert

were identified as possible liquid waste disposal areas by

USEPA. It is Fuss & O'Neill's interpretation that these

features merely represent diversions of the unnamed brook.

3-23 TLV1218C91\90264

printed on recycled paper RJSS&O-rVBLL.lNC.

3.4.2 1980 Aerial Photograph

The April 3, 1980 aerial photograph enlargement (approx. scale

1"-100') obtained from Aerographics, Inc. (Plate 6) indicates

that the active landfill area had expanded to the south and east

since the time of the 1975 photograph. Additionally, the

landfill is observed to extend nearly to the edge of the unnamed

brook to the west. Multiple working faces are present over the

landform in this photograph. The southwest corner of the

landfill appears to be a depression serving as the primary area

of waste disposal. Areas of discolored soil are present in this

area.

Debris appears to be scattered around the perimeter of the

landfill. From the roll-off container present approximately one

hundred feet west of the landfill office building westward

towards the unnamed stream, a number of possible drums and

debris line the edge of the existing tree line. The western

limit of the debris in this area is near the point where the

railroad stone arch culvert spans the unnamed brook. Varying

soil tones in this area suggest that waste may be disposed of or

buried in this area. Additionally, drums may be present on

either side of the access road at the base of the landfill slope

approximately 250 feet south of the landfill office building.

Debris, including possible drums, appears in the vicinity of the

southeast portion of the landfill ("Old Oak tree area").

Two cleared areas are present east of the landfill. These areas

may be disposal areas or sources of landfill cover. However,

debris and possible drums are present near the perimeter of

these areas as well.

3-24 TLW