ORIBINAL Illlllllllll lllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll · 2017. 5. 12. · ORIBINAL I lllllllllll...

ORIBINAL Illlllllllll lllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll SDMS DoclD 2198801

. THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR RIVER ROAD LANDFILL (wASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.)

. SUPERFUND SITE , FOROUl

MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLV ~IA

September 2014 .

Prepared By:· United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region 3 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

SEP 2 6 Z014

Date

! ~·--·

·: ' ~ ..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF A,BBREVIATIONS .••..•.••.••••••••••••••.•••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••.•.•.••••.••.•••..•••.•••.••.••...•.•••...•.•.3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .•••..•.•..•••••••••••.•••.••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••~•••••.•.•••••••.••••.•••.•••.•••••••.•.••..••..•.4

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM.•.••.•...••..•....•...•.•.•...•••••.••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••......•.5

1.0 Introduction•••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••.•••••••.•....•..••...•...•.•...•.•••••••.•..••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•...•••••7

2.0 Site Chronolog)' ·········~··············································································································8

3.0 Background ······················································································~········································9 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. ~..............................9 3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE USE ............................................................................................. 12 3.3 HISTORY OF CONTAMINATION ........................................................................................ 12 3.4 INITIAL RESPONSE .......................................................................................................... 12 3.5 BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION ............................................................................................ 13

4.0 Remedial Actions •••••..•..•.••..•.••.•.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.•••.••.••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••••••••14

4.1 REMEDY SELECTION ....................................................................................................... 14 4.2 REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 16 4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) ....................................................................... 17

5.0 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ..........................................................................17

6.0 Five-Year Review Process •••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••~•••••.•.••••.••.••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••18

6.1 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS .................................'.................................................... 18 6.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 19 6.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 19 6.4 DATA REVIEW ................................................................................................................23 6.5 SITE INSPECTION .............................................................................................................24 6.6 INTERVIEWS.........................•.....•••..••..•.•.....................................•......••..•••...•••....•...........25

7 .0 Technical Assessment ..••••••.••..•.•••.••.••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•25

7~1 QUESTION A: IS THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION

DOCUMENTS? ................•.•..•...............••....•...•••••••.•••.•.••.•..................•....•••...• ; ••.••.....••.•.. 25 7.2 QUESTION B: ARE THE EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS, TOXICITY DA TA, CLEANUP LEVELS AND

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOS) USED AT THE TIME OF REMEDY SELECTION

STILL VALID? .................................................................................................................26 7.3 QUESTION C: HAS ANY OTHER INFORMATION COME TO LIGHT THAT COULD CALL INTO

QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY? .......................................................27 7.4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ......................................................... ;.....................27

8.0 Issues ····~·~~········~·••'!••••··············································································································27 . 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...........~...............................................................27

10.0 Protectiveness Statement•.•••••.••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•.•••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•~···········28

11.0 Next Review ··················································································~·······································28

Appendix ·A: List o( Documents .Re~iewed ...........~..........~~....~....~............................................. A~1

Appendix. B: Press Notice ..................................... ~····································································B-1 . ' , Appendix C: ·site Inspection CheC~t ......~..~..................... · .........~..................~..~...................~ <;-i

' • . • • i .-·-- . ' • • • )

Appendix D: Site Photographs ..........................................................,'!······································ D-1 ' . . '

Appendix E: 2000 Declaration of Environmental Restrictions ..........~...........................~••••••E-1

Appendix }': Gro~nd Water Concentration Trends................~.....................~.....~............~.....F-1

Appe~dix·,G: Ground Water Contour Map .......................~..........~....................................~···· G-1

Append~ H: Ground Water ·concelitratio-. · Dat3 ..........................~······~~·······..···~················· H-1 Appendix I: Leachate Concentration Data (MHOL-1) ........................................................ ~.. I-1

. ' . (

·Tables · .· · , . . · . Table 1: Chronology of Site Evertts........................................... · .............. ~.........................................8

Table 1-1: Concentrations of Organic Contaminants in,Leachate (JJ:g/L) ..................................... 1-1 ·

Tabie 2: Contaminants of Concern .................................'.::.................. ; .......... : ...... ~....................... 14

. Table 3 :"Leachate. Cleanup Goals ...... ~·: ..................... ~ .......:~...... ; ....................... : ............................ 16 Table 4: Progress on Recommendations from the 2009 FYR .......................................................18 Table 5: Deed Documents from Mercer Cpunty Recorder's Office .......................................... ; ...20 Table 6: Instiiµtional Control (IC) Summary Table ................................................ , ......................20 Table 7: CUrl'ent Site Issues.:-.-.~........................... · ........,. ................................... : ............................... 27 Table 8: Recommendatioris to Address Current Site lssues ..........................................................28 Table H-1: Total Arsenic Concentration in Ground Water (µg/L) ..; .......................................... H-1 Table H-2: Total fron Concentration in Grorind Water (µg/L) .................................................. H-3 Table H-3: Total Manganese Concentration in Ground Water (µg/L) .......... ; ............................ H-5 Table H-4: Total Aluminum Concentration fo·Ground Water (µg/L) ....... , ................................ H-7

Table 1-2: Concentrations of Inorganic Contaminants in Leachate (µg/L) ............................... ~ .. 1-4

Figures Figure 1 : Site Location Map .......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Detailed Site· Map..................................................... , ....... ; .......... ~;................................. 11

Figure 3: Institutional Controls Map '"''.""'''"""""'"'""""'"""'"'""""""·""'"'""''"'""'""""''"''22

·2

ARAR CERCLA CFR EPA FYR GPRA IC NCP NPL O&M OU PADEP

·poTW PRP RAO ROD WMPA

LIST, OF ABBREVIATIONS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Code ofFederal Reglilations · United States Environmental Protection Agency Five-Year Review

. Government.Performance and Results Act . Institutional ·Control

National Oil .and Haµrdous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List Operation and Maintenance Operable Unit Pennsylvarua Department of Environmental Protection Publicly-Owned Treatment Works Potentially Responsible Party· Remedial Act~on Objective Record ofDecision · Waste Management ofPennsylvania, Inc.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The remedy for the River Road Landfill (Waste Management .. Inc.}Superfund site (the Site) in . the Cicy ofHeimitage and South PymaturiihgTo'Wnship, Mercer County, Pennsylvania, includes continuing operation of the treatment plan that was put in. place prior to EPA' s listing the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL)~ continuing to monitor site conditions, and maintaining institutional controls. The pre-existing treatment plan includes: maintenance ofa Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (P ADEP) solid waste-cap, a ground water dam, a ·· · ground··water/lea¢hate collection system, and a fence. Monitonng of site conditions, including · sampling ofground water, leachate and iandflll gas, evaluates the effectiveness of the completed remedial action. The institutional controls include aDeclaration·ofEnviromriental Restrictions to prohibit~ 'installation ofnew on-site potable wells, ex~avatiori or disturbance of the landfill cap, and construction ofresidential buildings on the Site.

The Site achieved co11Struction completion with the issuance of the Rec~rd of Decision (ROD) on December 29; 1995. EPA deleted the Site from the NPL'onJanuary 29, 2004. The.triggerihg action for this five-year review (FYR) wa8 the signing ofthe previoils FYR on S_eptember 28, . 2009. . . . . ,

The remedy currently protects human hea)th and.the environment in the short. term because the landfill. is capped, contaminated ground ·wat~r is contained, the Site is fenced~ and institutional controls prevent the use of contaminated ground water and residential qonstruction oµ the Site. However, in oraer for the remedy fo be.protective in the long term, the following action is. needed to inform the Agency.that protectiveness is ensured: collect and analyze sUrrace water and sedimei:tt samples from the sedimentation basins ~d· the river as required by the.ROD. - '

' .

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Measure Review

.As part ()fthis FYR, the GPRA Measures have also been reviewed. The GPRA Measures and their status are provided as follows: ·

Environmental Indicators Human Health: Hliman Exposure Controlled and Protective Rem~dy in Place (HEPR). Ground Water Migration: Ground Water Migration under Control (GMUC)

'-

Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) The Site achieved the SWRAU.Measure on June 27, 2008.

4

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: River Road Landfill (Waste Management, Inc.)

EPA ID: PAD000439083

Region: 3

NPL Status: Deleted

Multiple OUs? No

Lead agency: EPA

State: PA City/County: City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County

SITE STATUS

Has the site achieved construction completion? Yes

REVIEW STATUS

If "Other Federal Agency" selected above, enter Agency name:

Author name: Rashmi Mathur, with additional support provided by Skeo Solutions

Author-affiliation: EPA Region 3

Review period: January 9; 2014-September 28, 2014

Date of site inspection: March 25, 2014

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 3

Triggering action date: September 28, 2009

Due date (five years after 'triggering action date): September 28, 2014

5

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM (CONTINUED)

Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified In the Five-Year Review:

None

Issues and Recommendations Identified In the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Monitoring

Issue: WMPA did not monitor surface water or sediment quality during the past five years, as required by the ROD.

Recommendation: Collect surface water and sediment samples from the sedimentation basins and the river.

Affect Current Protectiveness

Affect Future Protectiveness

Implementing Party

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No Yes PRP EPA 09/30/2015

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date (if applicable): Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy currently protects human health and the environment in the short term because the landfill is capped, contaminated ground water is contained, the Site is fenced, and institutional controls prevent the use of contaminated ground water and residential construction on the Site. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following action is needed to inform the Agency that protectiveness is ensured: collect and analyze surface water and sediment samples from the sedimentation basins and the river as required by the ROD ..

6

Third Five-Year Review Report for

River Road Landfill (Waste Management, Inc.) Superfund Site

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. FYR reports document FYR methods, findings and conclusions. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency prepares FYRs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA Section 121 states:

If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each 5 years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.

EPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)( 4 )(ii), which states:

If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or 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 initiation of the selected remedial action.

EPA Region 3, with contractor support, conducted the FYR and prepared this report regarding the remedy implemented at the River Road Landfill (Waste Management, Inc.) Superfund site (the Site) in the City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania. EPA conducted this FYR from January to September 2014. EPA is providing oversight of the remedy that is being implemented by a potentially responsible party (PRP). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), as the support agency representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has reviewed all supporting documentation and provided input to EPA during the FYR process.

This is the third FYR for the Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the previous FYR. The FYR is required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants

7

remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Site consists of one operable unit (OU).

2.0 Site Chronology

Table 1 lists the dates of important events for the Site.

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date Landfilling began at the Site 1963 PADEP granted technical approval for operation of the facility Januarv 25, 1978 Erie Disposal Company (currently known as Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WMPA)) entered into an Article of Agreement with Bernard and Marv Ann David to purchase the site property

August 18, 1980

As part of WMPA's acquisition, Todd Giddings and Associates investigated the Site and recommended the construction of a landfill leachate collection system; cover and vegetation on the sides of the landfill; and evaluation of the feasibility of landfill expansion

1980

WMPA constructed ground water dam and southern portion of landfill leachate collection system

1980

WMPA constructed soil erosion and sediment control system 1982-1987 WMPA connected the ground water/leachate collection system to the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority wastewater treatment plant sewer line and closed the landfill leachate lagoon

1983

Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority and WMPA signed an agreement that defined loading limits for discharge to the municipal sewer

March 1, 1983

PADEP issued the final Solid Waste Disposal Permit for the landfill November 30, 1984 EPA conducted site investigation to evaluate potential hazards posed by the Site

1985

Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority and WMPA signed an addendum to the discharge permit, which revised the discharge loading limits

March 12, 1985

WMPA completed construction of the landfill leachate collection system 1986 Landfill ceased receiving waste May 31, 1986 WMPA covered the landfill portion of the Site with approximately three feet ofcover material and vegetated it in accordance with existing PADEP re1rulations

1986-1987

WMPA completed landfill leachate collection system upgrades, including a 21,000-gallon landfill leachate storage tank

1987

WMPA constructed a berm limiting surface water run-on; improved erosion control by adding terraces on the landfill and diversion structures; and fenced the entire Site

1988

PADEP aooroved the Site Closure Certification and Post-Closure Plan November 30, 1988 EPA listed the Site on the National Priorities List October 4, 1989 EPA issued Administrative Order by Consent to WMPA to conduct remedial investigation and feasibility study

May 5, 1990

Bernard and Mary Ann David conveyed the deed for the site property to WMPA

March 9, 1994

WMPA completed the remedial investigation and the human health and ecological risk assessments

March 1995

8

Event Date EPA issued the Record of Decision and the Site attained the "construction complete" milestone

December 29, 1995

WMPA upgraded the landfill leachate collection system 1997 EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences to correct the cost estimate presented in the 1995 Record of Decision

May 10, 1999

EPA and PRPs entered into a Consent Decree May25, 2000 WMP A recorded a Grant of Easement and a Declaration of Environmental Restrictions for the site property prohibiting: installation ofground water wells for potable purposes; excavation of soil cap that would expose contaminants; and construction of residential dwellings

July 25, 2000

EPA approved the monitoring program, which includes adjustment of leachate elevation to be consistent with PADEP operating permit

2002

EPA deleted the Site from the National Priorities List Januarv 29, 2004 EPA issued the first FYR report September 30, 2004 EPA issued the second FYR report September 28, 2009 City of Sharon Sanitary Authority issued an Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Permit to WMPA

December 3, 2013

3.0 Background

3.1 Physical Characteristics

The landfill is on two parcels, which total about 102 acres, in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The landfill occupies about 3 7 .5 acres. The Site is just outside the populated areas of the cities of Hermitage, Sharon and Sharpsville (see Figure 1). The undeveloped parts of the Site surrounding the landfill are vegetated with grasses and sparse trees. The Site is bordered to the northwest by River Road/Saranac Drive (State Route 846) and to the south by the Shenango River (see Figure 2). The southern part of the Site is in the City of Hermitage (parcel number 10 131 038); the northern part of the Site is in South Pymatuning Township (parcel number 28 131 081) (see Figure 3). Another Superfund site, Sharon Steel, is across the Shenango River to the south. Residential, agricultural and forested properties are located northeast and west of the Site.

The northern portion of the Site, which is relatively flat, was used as a soil borrow source during landfill closure activities. The southern portion of the Site, where the landfill is situated, is a slope covered with grass. Precipitation runoff from the landfill is directed via surface drainage channels to Sedimentation Basins A and B located at the southwest and southeast comers of the landfill, respectively. Both basins discharge to the Shenango River. P ADEP does not require the maintenance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit because River Road Landfill is no longer an operational facility.

9

Figure 1: Site Location Map

Hermitage, PA

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, AND, Tele Atlas, First American, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office.

0 750 1,500 3,000 ••ic:==-••••Feet

~ skeq NORTH 0 River Road Landfill Superfund Site

City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County, Pennsytvania

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.

10

Figure 2: Detailed Site Map

0 250 500 1,000•-==••-Feet

n NORTH

Sources: Esri, DeLo""•· AND, Tele Atlas, First American, UNEP-WCMC, USGS.

Legend

CJ Approximate Site Property Boundllf}' Leachate Collection Trench and Ground Water C::.'::i Approximate Lendfill Disposal Boundary Dam (approximate location)

-$ Monitoring WeMs • Leachate Sampling Location

- Security Fence

River Road Landflll Superfund Site City of Hennitage and South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for infonnational purpo e only regarding EPA 's response actions at the Site.

11

The geology of the Site consists of alluvial and glacial deposits overlying shale and sandstone bedrock. Ground water flow is generally southerly and upward, towards its discharge to the Shenango River (see Appendix G for the Site's most recent ground water contour map). The presence of the leachate collection system causes the formation of a localized flow system, superimposed on the regional system. Diversion of shallow ground water flow into the landfill leachate collection system occurs both upgradient and downgradient of the landfill (adjacent to the ground water dam). Leachate is collected and discharged to the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority sanitary sewer system and is treated at the City of Sharon's sewage treatment plant.

3.2 Land and Resource Use

Industrial activity at the Site began in the 1940s; the Site was used for oil and gas production at that time. By the late 1950s, the property was operated as a sand and gravel mine. The Site received waste for landfilling from 1963 until 1986. The Site is currently vacant and fenced, and is expected to remain as such for the foreseeable future. Enervest Operating LLC ofAustintown, Ohio, extracts natural gas at the property. Prior to the 1940s, land use in the site area was primarily agricultural. The area surrounding the Site is expected to remain residential, agricultural and forested.

Ground water at the Site flows south, toward the Shenango River. There are no drinking water wells between the Site and the river. The private wells near the Site are upgradient of the Site; most of the private wells are approximately 100 to 150 feet deep and produce water from bedrock, with low water yields common during periods of low precipitation. Shallow bedrock near the Site is not a source of abundant, high-quality water. There is a public drinking water intake on the Shenango River downstream of the Site.

3.3 History of Contamination

The first landfilling at the Site began in early 1963. From the beginning of operations in 1963 until 1980, the landfill received municipal, residential and industrial waste from area communities. The facility accepted approximately 2,000 tons of these waste streams per week. On January 25, 1978, PADEP granted technical approval fo~ operations of the facility (Technical Approval No. 100019).

In August 1980, Erie Disposal Company, currently known as Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WMPA), entered into an agreement to purchase the landfill. P ADEP issued a final solid waste disposal permit (No. 100019) for the landfill in 1984. The landfill stopped receiving waste in 1986.

3.4 Initial Response

In 1980, WMP A constructed a subsurface leachate collection system/ground water dam on the south side of the landfill, which collects leachate and ground water. Until 1983, the landfill leachate was stored on site in a lagoon. WMPA closed the landfill leachate lagoon in 1983. Since

12

1983, WMP A has discharged the collected landfill leachate and ground water to the local publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).

Starting in 1982, WMP A began upgrading and remediating the Site with soil erosion and sediment control systems. In 1986 and 1987, WMP A placed a three-foot cap on the landfill. Closure activities were completed and certified in 1988. P ADEP approved the River Road Landfill Certification and Post-Closure Plan in November 1988. WMP A added further upgrades to the landfill leachate collection system through 1988.

EPA Hsted the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) on October 4, 1989, on the basis of surface water, ground water and direct contact risk components of the Site's Hazard Ranking System score. In 1990, EPA issued an Administrative Order by Consent to WMP A to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study.

3.5 Basis for Taking Action

The Site's 1995 Final Baseline Risk Assessment found no unacceptable levels of risk under the current land use scenario (closed, fenced landfill with potential trespassing by juveniles). Under the future residential land use scenario, the estimated cancer risk was within EPA's acceptable risk range, but the estimated non-cancer hazard was above EPA' s threshold. The non-cancer hazards were driven by manganese and aluminum. Manganese and aluminum are compounds commonly found in the site area. The risk was based on people living on the landfill and drinking and bathing in ground water from wells placed in the landfill.

The ecological risk assessment found that a number of contaminants detected in surface water . and sediment exhibited a potential for ecological hazard. However, for some of the contaminants, the risk was not found to be significantly greater than the risk posed by those contaminants in nearby areas unaffected by the Site. The remaining contaminants were found in sediments of established wetlands. EPA concluded that these contaminants in their present location pose a minimal risk if they continue to remain undisturbed.

Table 2 below presents the Site's contaminants of concern, as identified by the 1995 Final Baseline Risk Assessment.

13

Table 2: Contaminants of Concern Soil Ground Water Surface Water Sediment

Aroclor-1248 Aluminum Barium Manganese Sulfur Ammonia Benzene Chloroethane 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1, 1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-DichJoropropane Vinyl chloride

Aluminum Lead Ammonia Nitrate, nitrite

Arsenic Lead Vanadium

4.0 Remedial Actions

In accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, the overriding goals for any remedial action are protection ofhuman health and the environment and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). A number of remedial alternatives were considered for the Site, and final selection was made based on an evaluation of each alternative against nine evaluation criteria that are specified in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP.

4.1 Remedy Selection

EPA issued the Site's Record of Decision (ROD) on December 29, 1995. The ROD established the following remedial action objectives:

• Prevent off-site migration of ground water. • Prevent ingestion of ground water containing leachate constituents at concentrations

creating an unacceptable health risk. • Minimize the release of leachate constituents to ground water that present

unacceptable health risks. • Prevent exposure to sediment contaminated by arsenic, Aroclor-1248 and chromium.

The selected remedy called for implementing institutional controls and continuing the preexisting treatment plan that was put in place prior to EPA's listing the Site on the NPL. The ROD specified the following operation and maintenance activities:

• Continued operation and maintenance of the existing ground water/leachate collection system that removes contaminated leachate and ground water from the Site.

• Continued maintenance of the PADEP-approved landfill cap and surface water drainage system.

• Continued maintenance of the ground water dam. • Continuance of the existing monitoring program developed in connection with the

PADEP closure plan, or as modified by mutual approval of EPA and PADEP.

14

• Periodic assessment of the effectiveness of the existing ground water/leachate collection system, and its upgrading, as necessary, to prevent contaminant migration.

The ROD specified the following institutional controls:

• Deed restrictions to prohibit: disturbing the soil cap, installing new on-site wells for domestic purposes, and building residential construction on the Site (but allowing beneficial reuse).

• Zoning restrictions would be proposed to be implemented by the local zoning commission to prevent future zoning changes that would allow for residential development or other types of development that would be inappropriate for a former ·landfill.

The ROD stated that the selected remedy would not remove the contaminated sediments from the Site's sedimentation basins, which had become established wetlands, because the contaminants pose a minimal risk if they remain undisturbed. The ROD stated the selected remedy would monitor surface water quality in the basins to ensure that discharge from the basins complies with state requirements.

The ROD also required that five-year reviews be conducted after the remedy is implemented to assure that the remedy continues to protect human health and the environment.

Table 3 presents the leachate cleanup goals, which are the discharge limits from the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority permit (as amended on March 12, 1985). Note that the Site also has an Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Permit, issued by the City of Sharon Sanitary Authority and effective on December 10, 2013, which in general contains more stringent limits. However, EPA has not identified the 2013 permit as an ARAR.

The ROD did not establish cleanup goals for ground water because '1he remedial action objectives for ground water stated in this ROD are met by the existing P ADEP closure plan activities and imposing Institutional Controls at the Site."

On May 10, 1999, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences to correct the cost estimate presented in the 1995 ROD.

15

Table 3: Leachate Cleanup Goals

Parameter

Total cyanide Arsenic Barium Cadmium Total chromium Coooer Lead Mercurv Nickel Selenium Silver Zinc PCBs

Maximum Loading from 1985 Permit

(oounds oer dav) 0.042 0.292 0.417 0.083 0.417 0.292 0.125 0.033 0.417 0.042 0.334 0.417 Detectable limit

4.2 Remedy Implementation

In a Consent Decree entered on May 12, 2000, EPA sought cost reimbursement and required that the existing Post-Closure Plan, or a modified plan approved by EPA and P ADEP, be implemented.

The Site's remedy consists of maintaining the existing remedial systems (including the surface water drainage system, ground water dam and leachate collection system, soil cover, etc.) and the development of institutional controls. Since 1987, operation, maintenance and monitoring have been performed at the Site based on the PADEP-approved Post-Closure Plan.

On July 25, 2000, the Mercer County Recorder's Office recorded the Declaration of Environmental Restrictions (Book 330, Pages 2116-2120), which allows beneficial reuse of the property but prohibits: construction of residential buildings, any disturbance of the soil cap that exposes contaminants, and the use and installation of wells for potable purposes.

As required by the ROD, EPA has proposed that the local zoning authorities in the City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township rezone the site property to prevent residential development or other types of development that would be inappropriate for a former landfill. However, the property's zoning remains residential. During this FYR process, EPA again discussed this topic with City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township officials. The officials stated that, although the property is still zoned residential, they are aware of the need to prevent inappropriate development at the Site. The City of Hermitage's director of planning and development, Marcia Hirschmann, stated that "the site is currently zoned R-1-100, which is a residential zoning district. This entire area of the City is similarly zoned. The City zoning ordinance does not currently contain an appropriate district (such as a Conservation Zone for example) which could replace R-1-100 in this location and not be objectionable to the surrounding property owners. We believe the deed restrictions which are already in place would be the most effective control to prohibit future residential development." South Pymatuning Township's zoning officer, Mourice Waltz, stated that the Township started the process several

16

years ago of re-evaluating the zoning throughout the Township but have since stopped that process prior to making any modifications. Mr. Waltz stated that he understood EPA's reasons to preclude residential development on the landfill and stated he would keep EPA's request in mind if the Township restarts the zoning evaluation in the future.

4.3 Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

Since 1987, WMP A has performed operation, maintenance and monitoring at the Site based on the PADEP-approved Post-Closure Plan. O&M at the Site includes operating the ground water and leachate collection system and maintaining the landfill cap, the surface water drainage system, and the security fence. WMP A conducts quarterly monitoring events, which include sampling leachate, landfill gas, and seven ground water monitoring wells. WMP A also measures ground water levels at the Site, which are used to create a ground water contour map. Appendix G of this FYR report presents the Site's most recent ground water contour map. WMPA submits the quarterly monitoring reports to P ADEP and EPA.

WMPA submits monthly effiuent discharge volume data to the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority. The Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority contracts with the Sharon Sanitary Authority to review WMPA's discharge data. The Sharon Sanitary Authority verifies that WMPA's discharge is in compliance with WMPA's current discharge permit issued by the Sharon Sanitary Authority (effective 2013-2017).

O&M costs for the past five years were not available for this FYR.

5.0 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

The protectiveness statement from the 2009 FYR for the Site stated the following:

This five-year review concludes that the remedy is functioning as designed The immediate threats have been addressed In the short term, the remedy is protective ofhuman health and the environment, and exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled Long term protectiveness ofthe remedy requires evaluation ofdocumentation to determine whether the institutional controls called for in the ROD have been properly implemented and remain in place.

The 2009 FYR included three issues and recommendations. Table 4 summarizes each recommendation and its current status below.

17

Table 4: Progress on Recommendations from the 2009 FYR

Recommendation Party Resoonsible

Milestone Date Action Taken and Outcome

Date of Action

Obtain and evaluate documentation to determine whether the institutional controls called for in the ROD have been properly implemented and remain in place.

EPA December

2010

This FYR finds that all of the institutional controls required by the ROD have been properly implemented and remain in place. Appendix E of this FYR provides a copy of the Declaration of Environmental Restrictions.

The ROD states that EPA would propose that the local zoning authorities implement zoning restrictions on the site property to prevent residential development or other types of development that would be inappropriate for a former landfill. EPA has proposed this to the localities; however, the property's zoning remains

07/09/2014

residential. During this FYR process, EPA again discussed this topic with City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township officials. The officials stated that, although the property is still zoned residential, they are aware of the need to prevent inappropriate development at the Site.

Ensure that bushes and other woody growth are removed from the landfill cover and berms during future mowing events.

WMPA December

2009

WMP A has removed bushes and other woody growth from the landfill cover and berms.

03/25/2014

During next five-year review WMPA evaluated the ground water period trend analysis of concentration trends ofarsenic, iron, arsenic, iron, manganese and aluminum will be performed to evaluate trend in

WMPA September

2012

manganese and aluminum. ln general, this FYR finds that concentrations have declined or remained stable since the

10/02/2012

downgradient monitoring 1980s. Section 6.4 of this FYR presents wells. the results of the trend analysis.

6.0 Five-Year Review Process

6.1 Administrative Components

EPA Region 3 initiated the FYR in January 2014 and scheduled its completion for September 2014. EPA remedial project manager David Turner led the EPA site review team, which also included EPA community involvement coordinator Carrie Deitzel and contractor support provided to EPA by Skeo Solutions. EPA established a review schedule consisting of the following activities:

• Community notification.

18

• Document review. • Data collection and review. • Site inspection. • Local interviews. • FYR report development and review.

6.2 Community Involvement

On April 16, 2014, EPA published a public notice in the Sharon Herald newspaper announcing the commencement of the FYR process for the Site, providing contact information for EPA Remedial Project Manager David Turner and EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Carrie Deitzel and inviting community participation. The press notice is available in Appendix B. No one contacted EPA as a result of the advertisement.

EPA will make the final FYR report available to the public. EPA will place copies of the document in the designated site repository: the Community Library of the Shenango Valley, 11 N. Sharpsville Ave., Sharon, Pennsylvania 16148.

6.3 Document Review

This FYR included a review of relevant, site-related documents including the ROD, remedial action reports and recent monitoring data. A complete list of the documents reviewed can be found in Appendix A.

ARARs Review CERCLA Section 121 (d)(l) requires that Superfund remedial actions attain "a degree of cleanup of hazardous substance, pollutants, and contaminants released into the environment and of control of further release at a minimum which assures protection of human health and the environment." The remedial action must achieve a level of cleanup that at least attains those requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate.

Ground Water ARARs The 1995 ROD did not select ground water ARARs because the ROD found that the ground water remedial action objectives would be met by the existing ground water treatment system with the addition of institutional controls.

Leachate ARARs The 1995 ROD states that the ARAR for leachate is the permit from the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority. Table 3 presents the discharge limits from the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority permit (as amended on March 12, 1985). Note that the Site also has an Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Permit, issued by the City of Sharon Sanitary Authority and effective on December 10, 2013, which in general contains more stringent limits. However, EPA has not identified the 2013 permit as an ARAR.

During this FYR, EPA spoke with Dale Bucher of the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority. The Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority contracts

19

with the Sharon Sanitary Authority to review the monthly discharge reports submitted by WMPA to the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority. EPA also spoke with Molly Campbell, the Sharon Sanitary Authority's environmental coordinator. The Sharon Sanitary Authority verifies that WMPA's discharge is in compliance with WMPA's current discharge permit issued by the Sharon Sanitary Authority (effective 2013-2017). The Sharon Sanitary Authority does not verify whether the discharge is in compliance with the 1985 permit issued by the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority.

Institutional Control Review

EPA's contractor conducted research on the Mercer County Recorder's Office website in February 2014 and found the deed information pertaining to the Site listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Deed Documents from Mercer County Recorder's Office

Date Type of

Document Description Book# Page#

July 25, 2000 Declaration of Environmental Restrictions

Allows beneficial reuse of the property, but prohibits: construction of residential buildings, any disturbance of the soil cap that exposes contaminants, and the use and installation of wells for potable purposes.

330 2116-2120

July 25, 2000 Grant of Easement

Grants access to the Site to EPA and contractors.

330 2111-2115

Table 6 lists the Site's institutional controls (also see Figure 3).

Table 6: Institq.tional Control (IC) Summary Table

ICs Called

Medium ICs

Needed? for in the Decision

Impacted Parcels

IC Objective

Instrument in Place

Notes

Documents?

Ground Water

Yes Yes 10 131 038; 28 131 081

Prohibit installation of potable wells on site property.


None

Soil Yes Yes 10 131 038 Prohibit disturbing the soil cap.


None

20

Medium

All

I Cs Needed?

Yes

ICs Called for in the Decision

Documents?

Yes

Impacted Parcels

IO 131 038; 28 131 081

IC Objective

Prohibit residential construction on site property.

Instrument in Place


Notes

None

21

Figure 3: Institutional Controls Map

Sources: Esri, DeLonne, AND, Tele Atlas, First American, UNEP-WCMC, USGS.

0 375 750 1,500 Legend•••===-•••••Feet 15.0lS Subject to the July 25, 2000 Declaration of Environmental

n NORTH

- Restrictions {Mercer County Parcel IDs labeled)

L-_-_~j Parcel Boundaries

---· Boundary between the City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township

River Road Landfill Superfund Site City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA' s response actions at the Site.

22

6.4 Data Review

Ground Water

During this FYR, EPA reviewed ground water concentration data from WMPA' s 2009-2013 quarterly monitoring reports. During the past five years, aluminum, arsenic, iron and manganese were regularly above their respective P ADEP Statewide Health Standards for ground water (Medium-Specific Concentrations for non-residential use aquifers with less than 2,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of total dissolved solids). This is consistent with levels from previous FYRs, and is expected due to geochemical conditions beneath landfills. Release of these metals occurs from soils and bedrock as well as from on-site waste material. Aluminum, arsenic, iron and manganese were also detected in the background well (MW-101) at levels above their respective PADEP Statewide Health Standards.

The ROD did not establish ground water cleanup goals or select ground water ARARs; therefore, the ground water data are compared to state standards and evaluated for trends.

As part of its second quarter 2012 monitoring report, WMPA evaluated the ground water concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, iron and manganese to identify any trends. Appendix F presents the trend charts prepared by WMP A as well as more recent trend charts for the years 2009-2013 prepared by EPA. This FYR finds that, in general, arsenic, iron, manganese and aluminum concentrations in ground water have declined or remained stable since the 1980s.

During the past five years, no volatile organic compounds were detected in ground water.

Appendix H presents ground water concentration data for arsenic, iron, manganese and aluminum from 1999 through 2014.

Leachate

This FYR reviewed leachate concentration data from WMPA's 2009-2013 quarterly monitoring reports. In order to compare the leachate concentration data against the maximum loading rates specified in the 1985 discharge permit, this FYR converted the reported concentrations (µg/L and mg/L) to loading rates (pounds per day) using the monthly discharge volumes measured by WMPA. As a conservative estimate, this FYR used the largest monthly discharge volume from each quarter to calculate that quarter' s loading rate.

This FYR compared the calculated loading rates against the discharge limits from the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority permit (as amended on March 12, 1985) (see Table 3). The Site has not exceeded its 1985 permit discharge limits over the past five years.

Appendix I presents leachate concentration data from 1999 through 2014.

During the past five years volatile organic compounds were detected in leachate in nine of the 19 quarterly sampling events. No volatile organic compounds were detected at concentrations above their respective Statewide Health Standards for ground water (Medium-Specific Concentrations for non-residential use aquifers with less than 2,500 mg/L of total dissolved

23

solids). At some sites, vapors from underground can enter buildings and cause potential health risk. Vapor intrusion is not a concern at this site because, during the past five years, no volatile organic compounds were detected in ground water, and the volatile organic compounds that were detected in leachate were below Statewide Health Standards. In addition, the nearest buildings are over 500 feet away from the landfill's waste.

Landfill Gas

WMP A conducted quarterly landfill gas monitoring at 17 locations at the periphery of the site property. During all of the sampling events, methane readings were 0 percent at each of the sampling locations.

Surface Water

The Site' s ROD stated that the selected remedy would monitor surface water quality. WMPA did not conduct surface water or sediment sampling during the past five years.

6.5 Site Inspection

EPA led the FYR site inspection on March 25, 2014. Site inspection participants included David Turner (EPA Region 3 Remedial Project Manager), Carrie Deitzel (EPA Region 3 Community Involvement Coordinator), Charles Byham (P ADEP project manager), Mark Snyder (WMPA senior district manager), Tim Haaf (WMPA operations and maintenance supervisor), Amanda Goyne (Skeo Solutions) and Hagai Nassau (Skeo Solutions). Site inspection participants toured the Site on foot and inspected the cap, security fence, monitoring wells and leachate collection system. There was no damage to the cap or monitoring wells. There were several holes cut in the Site' s security fence. The Site is not fenced on the side abutting the Shenango River. Most . monitoring wells were locked; wells P-2 and LH-7 were not locked. Not all monitoring wells were labeled. Two gates were not locked (the gate leading to MW-105 and the gate in the fence surrounding MW-105). Some manhole covers were not locked. There were signs of trespassing on the Site (shotgun shell casings; signs have been shot). The electrical building and the emergency generator building, both ofwhich service the leachate collection pump, were locked. There was a sinkhole present in the dirt road over a culvert on the north side of the landfill. Surface water runoff on the north side of the landfill is staining the sediment red. The landfill cap is covered with well-established grass, except for a small area (a few square feet) without vegetation on the west slope of the cap.

The Site Inspection Checklist is provided in Appendix C. Photographs from the FYR site inspection are provided in Appendix D.

After the site inspection, WMP A repaired the fence and locked the monitoring wells (P-2 and LH-7) and the gates that were not locked during the site inspection. Photographs of these repairs are included in Appendix D.

On March 25, 2014, Skeo Solutions staff visited the designated site repository, the Community Library of the Shenango Valley, 11 North Sharpsville Avenue, Sharon, Pennsylvania, as part of

24

the FYR site inspection. The repository was last updated in 1995 with the 1995 Remedial Investigation Report, the 1995 Draft Feasibility Study and the 1995 Proposed Plan.

6.6 Interviews

For this 2014 FYR, EPA contacted local officials at the City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township to solicit comments about the Site; however, the local officials did not respond.

7.0 Technical Assessment

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

Yes. The remedy is functioning as intended by the Site's 1995 ROD. WMP A continues to operate and maintain the ground water/leachate collection system, the landfill cap, the surface water drainage system, and the ground water dam. WMP A continues quarterly monitoring of ground water, leachate and landfill gas. The deed restrictions called for in the ROD have been implemented. The Site is secured with a fence. After the March 2014 FYR site inspection, WMP A repaired the fence and locked the gates and monitoring wells that were not locked during the site inspection.

The Site's remedy is achieving the remedial action objectives identified in the 1995 ROD. Contaminant concentrations in the Site's leachate have not exceeded the 1985 Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority discharge limits over the past five years. Although aluminum, arsenic, iron and manganese were regularly detected in the Site's ground water above their respective Statewide Health Standards during the past five years, the Site's ground water/leachate collection system is preventing off-site migration of ground water and is minimizing the release of leachate constituents to ground water. In general, arsenic, iron, manganese and aluminum concentrations in ground water have declined or remained stable since the 1980s (see the trend charts in Appendix F). During the past five years, no volatile organic compounds were detected in ground water.

WMPA's quarterly monitoring reports currently use PADEP Statewide Health Standards as reference values for comparison with the contaminant concentrations detected in both ground water and leachate. EPA recommends that WMPA report leachate data (MHOL-1) in a table separate from the ground water data. EPA recommends that contaminant concentrations in leachate be compared against the concentration limits in the 2013 Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Permit, issued by the City of Sharon Sanitary Authority. EPA also recommends that WMPA convert the detected concentration values to loading rates of pounds per day, and compare the loading rates against the limits in the 1985 permit from the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority. EPA recommends that WMPA compare ground water concentrations against EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and EPA risk-based screening levels (RSLs), in addition to P ADEP Statewide Health Standards.

The July 2000 Declaration of Environmental Restrictions prohibits the use and installation of potable wells on the Site, thereby preventing ingestion of contaminated ground water. The

25

remedy prevents exposure to contaminated sediment because the Site is surrounded by a fence and the Declaration of Environmental Restrictions prohibits residential construction.

The Site's ROD stated that the selected remedy would monitor surface·water quality. WMPA did not conduct surface water or sediment sampling during the past five years. This is particularly important as now federally-listed endangered mussels have been identified in the Shenango River near the Site. As a recommendation of this review, surface water and sediment samples will be collected from the sedimentation basins and the river. Prior to sampling, the PRPs will submit a sampling and analysis plan to EPA for approval.

As required by the ROD, EPA has proposed that the local zoning authorities in the City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township rezone the site property to prevent residential development or other types of development that would be inappropriate for a former landfill. However, the property's zoning remains residential. During this FYR process, EPA again discussed this topic with City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township officials. The officials stated that, although the property is still zoned residential, they are aware of the need to prevent inappropriate development at the Site. The City of Hermitage's director ofplanning and development, Marcia Hirschmann, stated that "the site is currently zoned R-1-100, which is a residential zoning district. This entire area of the City is similarly zoned. The City zoning ordinance does not currently contain an appropriate district (such as a Conservation Zone for example) which could replace R-1-100 in this location and not be objectionable to the surrounding property owners. We believe the deed restrictions which are already in place would be the most effective control to prohibit future residential development." South Pymatuning Township' s zoning officer, Mourice Waltz, stated that the Township started the process several years ago of re-evaluating the zoning throughout the Township but have since stopped that process prior to making any modifications. Mr. Waltz stated that he understood EPA' s reasons to

·preclude residential development on the landfill and stated he would keep EPA' s request in mind if the Township restarts the zoning evaluation in the future.

7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives (RA Os) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

Yes. The assumptions and data used at the time of the 1995 ROD are still valid. Land use on and near the Site is expected to remain unchanged. The maximum discharge loading rates specified in the 1985 Addendum to Agreement between the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority and WMPA remain unchanged. The RAOs selected in the 1995 ROD are still valid. There have been changes in toxicity data, exposure parameters and risk methodology since the 1995 ROD, but these changes do not impact the Site' s remedy.

The ROD did not establish ground water cleanup goals or select ground water ARARs, because the ROD found that the ground water remedial action objectives would be met by the existing treatment scheme with the addition of institutional controls.

Vapor intrusion is not a concern at this Site because, during the past five years, no volatile organic compounds were detected in ground water, and the volatile organic compounds that were

26

detected in leachate were below Statewide Health Standards. In addition, the nearest buildings are over 500 feet away from the landfill's waste.

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

Since the previous five-year review in 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) as an endangered species. The Service's mussel survey records indicate that this species occurs in the Shenango River upstream, adjacent to and downstream of the landfill.

7.4 Technical Assessment Summary

The remedy is functioning as intended by the Site's 1995 ROD and is achieving the remedial action objectives. The Site's leachate has not exceeded its discharge limits over the past five years. The Site's ground water/leachate collection system is preventing off-site migration of ground water and is minimizing the release of leachate constituents to ground water. The July 2000 Declaration of Environmental Restrictions prohibits the use and installation of potable wells on the Site, thereby preventing ingestion of contaminated ground water. The remedy currently prevents exposure to contaminated sediment because the Site is surrounded by a fence and the Declaration ofEnvironmental Restrictions prohibits residential construction. The assumptions and data used at the time of the 1995 ROD are still valid. However, WMPA did not monitor surface water or sediment quality during the past five years, as required by the ROD.

8.0 Issue

Table 7 summarizes the current site issue.

Table 7: Current Site Issue

Issue

WMPA did not monitor surface water or sediment quality during the past five years, as required by the ROD.

Affects Current Protectiveness?

No

Affects Future Protectiveness?

Yes

9.0 Recommendation and Follow-up Action

Table 8 provides a recommendation to address the current site issue.

27

Table 8: Recommendation to Address Current Site Issue

Issue

WMPAdidnot monitor surface water or sediment quality during the past five years, as required by the ROD.

Recommendation I Follow-Up Action

Collect surface water and sediment samples from the sedimentation basins and the river.

Party Responsible

PRP

Oversight Agency

EPA

Milestone Date

09/.30/2015

.

Affects Protectiveness?

Current Future

No Yes

The following additional items, though not expected to affect protectiveness, warrant additional follow-up:

• EPA recommends that WMP A label all monitoring wells at the Site. • EPA recommends that WMPA report and present the site data using the 2013 permit

limits and MCLs.

10.0 Protectiveness Statement

The remedy currently protects human health and the environment in the short term because the landfill is capped, contaminated ground water is contained, the Site is fenced, and institutional controls prevent the use of contaminated ground water and residential construction on the Site. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness: collect surface water and sediment samples from the sedimentation basins and the river as required by the ROD.

11.0 Next Review

The next FYR will be due within five years of the signature/approval date of this FYR.

28

Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed

City of Sharon Sanitary Authority. 2013. Industrial User Wastewater Discharge Pennit. Pennit Nlimber P AD20126-002. ·. ·

EPA. 1995. Record of Decision.

EPA.. 1999: ·Explanation ofSignificant Differences.

EPA. 2004. Five-Year Review Report. . ".,

. EPA. 2009. Five-Year Review Report.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2009-2014. Quarterly Environmental Monitoring Reports. ; ' . . _,/

Upper.Shenango Valley Wat~r'.Pollution Control Authority. 1983. Industrial Waste Discharge Pennit. Pennit No. 001. · ·

Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority and WMPA. ~983. Agreement.

Upper Shenango Valley Water Poll_ution Control Authority ~d.WMPA. 1985. Adpendum to Agreement. · · ·· ·

UpperSh~nango Valley Water Pol)ution Control Authority.and wMPA. 1986. Second Addendum to Agree01ent.

WMPA. 1995. Flnal Baseline Risk Assessment: River Road Landfill.

A-I

Appendix B: Press Notice

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Reviews

Cleanup at River Road Landfill Superfund Site

The U.S. Envlronmental Protectton Agency (EPA) Is conduatfng• third Five-Year Review of the River Road landflV 5uperfund Site located In Mercer County. This regular review seeks to confirm that the deenllp conducted at the site, whkh Included cappins the site, and pumping and treatJna contamlnatad groundwater, and revegetatlng the property, continues to be protectfve·of public health and the environment. EPA's last fortnal reView or the site In 2009 determined that the cleanup remedy was wortclng as de;slgned and prot2ctfve of public health and the envfroMlt!nt. A summary of these actMtfes and evaluatlon or the lonf'term protectiveness of the remedy wlll be Included In the upcoming Five-Year Review report.

The 1Jte Admlnlstrattve Record tAR), which lndudes EPA dedslon documents, 1$ rnllable at -.ef)a.p/arweb. You may also revlaW the AR and other site infonnatlon at: COmmuntty Ubrary of5henengo Valley 11 N. Sharpsvllle Ave., Shfron, PA 16148 OR EPA Region 3 Publlc Rudin& Room Attn: Paul Van Reed (3HS42) 1650 Arch StJef, 6"' ftoor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (21S) 814-3157 (Please call to make an appt.)

l.

Ifyou have any concerns or Information about a change In current site conditions, contad.: Carrie Deltzel EPA Communnr lnvolllftment CoontlnotDr Phone: (215} 814-5525 or (800) 553-2509 Email: [email protected] OR DavfdTUmer Eitlt Retiwldlol l'roject Mllntlfler Phone: (215)814-3216 Email: [email protected]

B-1

App~ndix C: Site Inspection Checklist

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

1

•• I~ SITE INFORMATION

Site. Name: Ri~er.Road Landfill (Waste M;µiagement, In~~) : J •

Date oflnspectiO.n,: March 25, 20 IA

L~cation·and R~on: City of Hermitage and South Pymatuning Township, Pennsylvania, Region 3 EPA ID: PA0000439083

Agency, Office or Company Leading t"~ Five-Year Review: EPA Region j Weatberrfemperature: clear, about 30°F

Remedy InCludes: (Check all that apply) · 181 Landfill cover/containment .

.181 Access controls 181 mstitutional controls 181 Ground water pump and treatment D Smface water collectJon and treatment . D Other: · . ·

D Monitored natural attenuation 181 Ground water containment 181 Vertical barner walls

Attachments: . 181 Irispection team roster attached . D Site map attached

.::; · . · .·· . IL INTERVIEWS (check all thiit apply)

1. O&M Site. M•riager ·· Nallie

Interviewed D at site D at office D by phone Problems, suggestions D·Renart attached: ·

Title Phone: __

mm/dd/yyyy Date

2. O&MStaff Name Title

Interviewed D at site D at office. D by phone Phone: __, , Problems/suggestions. D Report attached:

mmldd/yyyy Date

C-1

-- -- -- --

-- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state .and tribal offices, ~mergency response office, police departnient, office ofpublic health or environmental health,.zoning office, recorder Ofdeeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply,

Agency __ Contact

Name Title Date Phone No. Problems/suggestions D Report attached: __. _

I

Agency_._ Contact __Name

Title Date Phone No. Problems/suggestions D Report attached: __ -

. )

Agency __ Contact

Name Title Date Phone No. ' ..Problems/suggestions D Report attached: __

Agency __ Contact ·. ..

Name .Title Date Phone No.

( Problems/suggestions·D Report attached: __

Agency_.__ \

Contact Name Title Date Phone No.

Problem'stsu22estions D Report attached: . '

4. Other Interviews (optional) ·D Report atta~hed: _._ \_:

.. · IIL ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)

I. O&M Documents

181 O&M manual 181 Readily available 181 Up to date ON/A

0 As-built drawings

181 Maintenance logs

D Readily avaiiable

~ Readily available

· D Up .to date ..

~Up to date

ON/A

ON/A

Remarlcs: - 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ~ Readily avail~ble 181 Up to date ON/A

181 Contingency plan/emergency response plan

~ Readily available

.·

D Up to date ON/A

Remarks: - 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records D Readily available D Up to date ON/A

-· Remarks: -

4. Permits and Service Agreements

D Air discharge permit D Readily available D Up to date 181 N/A

D Eftluent discharge D Readily available D Up to date 181 N/A

181 Waste. disposal, POTW 181 Readily available 181 Up to date . ON/A

D Other permits: __ D Readily available · 0Uptodate 181 N/A

Remarks: - 5. Gas Generation Records D Readily available 0 Up to date 181 N/A

I

Remarks: - 6. Settlement Monument Records D Readily available D Up to date 181 N/A

Remarks: - 7. Ground Water.Monitoring Records 181 Readily avail~ble 181 Up to date ON/A

Remarks: - 8. Leachate' Extraetion Records 181 Readily available 181 Up to date ON/A

...Remarks: __.. ·_ .

9. Discharge Compliance Records

0Air I D Readily available D Up to date ON/A

181 Water (eftl~ent) 181 Readily available 181 Up to date ' ON/A

Remarks: - 10. j

Daily Access.ISecurity Logs 0 Readily available D Up to date ON/A

Remarks: - IV. O&M COST,S

I. O&M Organ&.aition .

0 State in-house 0 Contractor for state

181 i>RP in-house _ 0 Contractor for PRP

0 Federal facility in-house 0 Contractor for Fed.eral facility

o_

C-3

--

--

--

--

--

I

2. .O&M Cost Records

0 Readily available 0Uptodate

~ Funding mechanism/agreement in place ~ Unavailable I

Original O&M cost estimate: __ 0 Breakdown attached . . . .

Total annual cost by year for review period if available ,

From: mm/dd/yyyy . To: mmldd/yyyy 0 Breakdown attached (

'Date . Date Total cost

From:mm!ddiyyyy To: mmldd/yyyy · 0 Breakdown attached

·Date Date Total cost

From:mm/dd/yyyy To: mmldd/yyyy 0 Breakdown attached \

Date Date. Total cost

From: mmldd/yyyy · To: mmldd/yyyy D Breakdown attach~d Date. ' Date Total cost

_, From: mmldd/yyyy To: mmldd/yyyy 0 Breakdown attached

Date .Date. Total cost

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period ..

Describe costs and reasons:

V; _ACCESS Am> INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 181 Applicable ON/~

A. Fencing

I. Fencing Dam~ged D Location shown on site map · D Gates secured ON/A

Remarks: Several holes in fence. Two gates were not locked (the gate leading to MW-105 and the gate in the ferice surrounding MW-I 05}. · · ·

B. Other Access Restrictfons -

I. Signs and Qther Security Measures 0. LOcation showµ on site map ON/A

Remarks: -

C-4

--

C. Institutional Controls (ICs) (

\

1. Implementation and Enforcement

Site conditions imply.ICs not properly implemented 0Yes [81 No ON/A

Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced 0Yes [81.No ON/A

Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): weekly presence ofO&M staff

Frequen~y: weekly

Responsible party/agency: PRP .

Contact ·Mark Snyder senior district manager 03/25/2014 · 585-223-6132, ext. 228

Name Title Date Phone no.

Reporting is up to d&te 0Yes 0No [81 NIA

Reports are verified by the lead agency 0Yes 0No [81N/A

Specific.requjrements in deed or decision documents have [81 Yes 0No ON/A beenmet

Violations have been reported 0Yes [81No ON/A

Other problems or suggestions: 0 Report atiached

2. Adequacy D ICs are adequate [81 ICs are inadequate ON/A

Remarks:

D. General

1. VandaliSmtrrespassing 0 Location shown on site map 0 No vandalism evident

Remarks: several holes cut in fence, shotgyn shell casings on site, signs on site have been shot

2. Land Use Changes On Site [81 N/A

Remarks: -3. Land Use Changes Off Site . [81N/A

·Remarks: -\ VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads [81 Applicable ON/A

I. Roads Da~aged 0 Location shown on site map [81 Roads adequate ON/A

Remarks: -B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks: -

C-5

0

VII. LANDFILL COVERS 181 Applicable ON/A

·A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (low spots) D Location shown on site map ..

Arial extent: - Remarks:.-

181 Settlement not evident

Depth: __

2, Cracks D Location shoWn on site map-

181 Cracking not evident

Lengths: __ Widths: -- Depths: __

Remarks: - 3. Erosion D Location shown on site map .181 Erosion not evident

Arial extent: - Depth: __

Remarks:

. 4. Holes D Location shown on site map · 181 Holes not evident

Arial extent: -- Depth: __ ·~

Remarks: - -5. Vegetative Cover 181 Grass 181 Cover properly established

D No signs ofstress D Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks: small area without vegetation on western slone ofcan

6. Alternative Cover (e.g., armored rock, concrete) · 181 N/A

Remarks: - 7. Bulges. D Location shown on site map 181 Bulges not evident

Arial extent: Height: __

Remarks: - ,.

8. Wet Areas/Water · 181 Wet areas/water damage not evident Damage

D Wet·ar.eas D Location shown on site map Arial extent: - D Ponding D Location shown on site map Arial extent: - D Seeps _D Location shown on site map Arial extent: - D Soft subgrade D Location sho~ on site map Arial extent: - Remarks: -

9. Slope Instability .O Slides D Location shown on site map

181 No evidence of slope instability ..,

Arial extent: -Remarks: -

C-6

--

B. Benches IZI Applicable ON/A

(Horiz01;1tally constructed mounds ofearth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of s~ace runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)

I. Flows Bypass Bench D Location shown on site map IZI N/ A or okay

Remarks: - 2. Bench Breached 0.Location shown on site map

-IZI N/ A or okay

Remarks: - 3. Bench Overtopped D Location shown on site map IZI N/ A or okay

Remarks: - c. ·Letdown Channels D Applicable 181 N/A

(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side slope o.fthe cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without cr~ating erosion gullies.)

I. Setde,ment (Low spots) D Location shown on site map D No evidence ofsettlement'

Arial extent: -- Depth: __

· Remarks:· --'·

2. Material Degradation -D Location sho\Vn on site map· D No evidence ofdegradation

Material type:__ Arial extent: - Remarks: ,,

,

3. Erosi~n. D Location shown on site map D No evidence oferosion

Ariai extent: -- Depth: __

Remarks: - 4. Undercutting D Loc_ation shown on site map D No evidence ofundercutting

Arial ~xtent: - Depth:_._

Remarks: - 5. Obstructions Type: __ D No obstructions

D Location shown on site map Arial extent: - Size: - Remarks: -

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type: __

D No evidence of ex~essive growth

D Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow

D Location shown on site map Arial extent: - Remarks: -

C-7

D. Cover Penetrations D Applicable ~NIA •·

1. Gas Vents '

o·Active ' 0Passive -

0 Properly secured/locked 0 Functioning 0 Routinely sampled 0 Good condition

· 0 Evidence of leakage at penetration D Needs maintenance ON/A

Remarks: -2. Gas Monitoring Probes -.


0 Evidence of leakage at penetration D Needs maintenance ON/A

Remarks: -

3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) '· ....

-


o·Eviderice of leakage at penetration 0 N~eds majntenance ON/A .

Remarks: -4. Extraction Wells Leachate

0 Properly secured/locked 0 Functioning 0 Routinely sampled 0 _Good condition

0 Evidence of leakage at penetration 0 Needs maintenance ON/A

Remarks:

5. Settlement Monuments 0 Locat~d 0 Routinely stirveyed ON/A

Remarks: .· -

E. Gas Collection and Treatment 0 Applicable ~NIA

1. Gas Treatment Facilities

0 Flaring 0 Thermal destruction 0 Collection for reuse

0 Good condition 0 Needs maintenance

Remarks: '-2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping


Remarks: -3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring ofadjacent homes or buildings)

0 Good condition 0 Needs maintenance ON/A

Remarks:·-F. Cover Drainage Layer 0 Applicable ~NIA

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected 0 Functioning . ON/A

Remarks: -2. Outlet Rock Inspected 0 Functioning ON/A

..· ·Remarks: -

c~s

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable ON/A

1. Siltation Area extent: - Depth:_·._ ON/A

~ Siltation not evident

Remarks:_·_'_

2. Erosion Area extent: Depth: __ , -- ~ Erosion not evident

Remarks: - '3. Outle_t Worki ~ Functioning ON/A-

Remarks: - I

4. Dam ~ Functioning ON/A-

Remarks: - H._ Retaining Walls 0 Applicable ~NIA

1. Deformations · 0 Location shown on site map 0 DefonnatiOn not evident

H'.orizOntal displacement: __ vertical displacement: __

Rotational displacement: __·

Remarks: -

2. Degradation _0 Location shown on site map 0 Degradation not evident

Remarks: :

- I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable ON/A

1. Siltation 0 Location shown on site map [81 Siltation not evident

Area extent: - Depth: __ I

Remarks: - 2. Vegetative Growth 0 Location shown on site map ON/A

181 VegetatioQ does-not impede flow

Area extent: - Type: __

Remarks: - 3. Erosion D Location shown on site map [81 Erosion not evident

Area extent: - Depth:_--_ :

Remarks: --- 4. Discharge Structure 181 Functioning ON/A

' Remarks: '-

C'.'.9

/

.

.. VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable ON/A

I. Settlement D Location shown on site map ~ Settlement not evident

Area extent: --· Depth: ___

Remarks: -. 2. Performance Monitoring Type ofmonitoring: ground water and leachate samgling

-

D Performance not monitored I

Frequency: quarterly . 0 Evidence ofbreaching

Head differential: -Remarks: -

IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ~ Applicable D N/A

A.: Ground Water Extraction W«'.lls, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ON/A

I. Pumps, Wellhead ~lumbing and Electrical •, .

~ Good condition . ~ All required wells properly operating 0 Needs maintenance ON/A

Remarks: discharges to municigal sewer line

2. Extraction System Pipelines,, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances

~ Gooq condition D Needs maintenance

Reniarks: -

3. Spare Parts and Equipment -

0 Readily' available 0Good 0 Requires upgrade 0 Needs to be provided condition·

Remarks: -B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines D Applicable ~NIA

I. Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical


Remarks: -2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances

D Good condition 0 Needs maintenance. - \

Remarks: -

3. Spare Parts and Equipment

· D Readily available 0Good · 0 .Requires upgrade _ 0 Needs to be provided condition

Remarks: '· -

C-10

C. Treatment System D Applicable ~NIA

1. Treatment Traill (check components thatapply)

D Metals removal · . 0 OiVwater separation 0 Bioremediation

D Air stripping 0 Carbon adsorbers

D Filters: __. ,

0 Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent): __

0 Others:_._


0 Sampling ports pr9perly marked and functional

0 Samplillglmainten,aiice .log displayed and up to date 0 Equipment properly identified

0 Quantity ofground water treated annually: __

· 0 Oucan.tity of surfac~ water treated annually: __,

Remarks: __

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)

0 N/A 0 Good 0 Needs mainten!l'1ce condition

Remarks:

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

ON/A 0Good 0 Proper secondary containmeni condi~ion

Remarks: __

0 Needs maintenance

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances··

ON/A 0Good 0 Needs ~aintenance condition

Remarks: __

5. Treatment Building(s)

ON/A. D Good condition (esp. roofand doorways).

0 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks: __

0 Needs repair

C-11

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

D Properly securedllo~ked D Functioning

D Routinely sampled D Good condition

l

0 All required wells located 0 Needs maintenance ON/A

Remarks:

D. Monitoring Data ';·

1. Monitoring; Data

181 Is routinely submitted on time 181 Is ofacceptable quality

2. Monitoring Data Suggests:

181 Ground water plume is effectively 181 Contaminant concentrations are declining contained

E. Monitored Natural Attenuatfon -.

1. Monitoring _Wells (naiural attenuation remedy)

I

0 Properly secured/locked -

0 All required wells .located

0 Functioning 0 Routinely sampled

·-0 Needs maintenance

D Good condition

181 N/A

Remarks: - . X. OTHER REMEDIES --

Ifthere are remedJe~ applied at the site and not covered above, aµach an inspection sheet.describing the physical nature and condition ofany facility associated with the remedy. ·An examole would be soil vapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS ,.A. Implementation of the Remedy ..

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with abriefstate~ent ofwhat the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions). The remed~'s objectives are to nrevent off-site migmtion of ground water, nrevent ingestion of contaminated ground water, minimize the release ofleachate constituents to ground water, and nrevent e~osureto contaminated sedinient. ·The remed~ is functioning as intended b)'. the Site's 1995 ROD. WMPA continues to onerate and maintain the ground water/leachate collection s~stem, the landfill can, the surface water drainage system, and the ground water dam. WMPA continues gliarterl~ monitoring of ground water, leachate and landfill gas. The deed restrictions called for in the ROD have been imnlemented. The Site is secured With.a fence. '

<B. Adeauacy of O&M Describe issues an~ observations related to the impl~nientation and scope ofO&M prQcedtires. In particular, discuss their relationship to the ~urrent and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. In general, O&M nrocedures are ad~uate to ensure the current and long-term nrotectiveness ofthe remed~. However, WMPA did not monitor surface·water gualill'._ in the sedimentation basms during the nast five vears as reauired bv the ROD.

c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems . . Describe issues and.observations.such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high ·

. frequency of unscheduled repairS that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy niay be compromised in the future~ · None.

D. Oooortunities for Optimization

C-12

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. None identified. · ·

Site Inspection Attendees:

David Turner, EPA Region 3 Remedial Project Manager Came Deitzel, EPA Region .3 Commtihity Involvement Coordinator C4arles Byham,.PADEP reme_dial project manager Mark Snyder,, Waste Management.senior district manager Tim Haaf,· Waste Management operations and maintenance supervisor Amanda Goyne, Skeo Solutions (EPA contractor) Hagai Nassau, Skeo Solutions (EPA contractor)

C-13

Appendix D: Site Photographs

Crest of landfill cap (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

South slope of landfill cap and Sedimentation Basin B (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

D-1

North slope of landfill cap (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

Emergency generator building (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

D-2

Shotgun shell casings on site (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

Hole cut in security fence (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

0-3

Vandalized sign on site (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

Unlocked monitoring well (FYR site inspection, March 25, 2014)

D-4

Locked gate (photo provided by WMPA, July 2014)

Locked gate (photo provided by WMPA, July 2014)

D-5

Fence repair (photo provided by WMPA, July 2014)


D-6


Locked monitoring well (photo provided by WMPA, July 2014)

·1 D-7



D-8

Appendix_ E: 2000 Declaration of Environmental Restrictions

ROLL 300+ .,,

00 OH111171111111 Jll 25 A 0 21»

DECLAIL\11QN OF. ENVIRONMINTAL RIS'l'RlcrlONS

. '

'Ibis Declaralion or Enviromnental Restricdons (die "Declaralion") is made as of die ~dayor~. 2000 by WAS'.J'E MANAGEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA. INC., a Fennsylvlftia c:tlpomton having an addn:ss or 1000 New Ford Mill Road. · Morrisville, Pennsylvania. -t9067 ~inafter referred ro as die "Owner").

Bactln!und

0n.:r is die owner In tie ~ orCertain reil propeny ·a111111e In. ~~itY of Hcrmillge and PylDlumini T~.Mm:er Cowiiy, Pcmlsyl~ania. beiDi mo~ p8itic;ularly described on Exllibit "A• aaacbed bereco ml made apan·llCreof (die ·PrOpcny·). ThC..

.Property is commonly known as die "River. Road Lmtfill Site". . . . The-has bcCn-idenurlCd by die URueca Slates F.nvironmenlal Pn.:tion AgerJtiy. (togcdler witb any successor qencj 0r clCpinmcni. die •Agency;.) al conrainilig catain ~ iUbstances (die "Conlaminants"), as more ipecifically detailed in die Remedial lnveariplion and Feasibility StudY documems psepared by die Owner 81 die . dita:lion ofdle Ap:sy and lhe Ra:onl ofl>lciaion issued by lbe,'A&encY on Dtcemller 29, 19" plllMJll IO die Compn:bensift Eaviromnenlal Rapome. Compen111tnn, and Uabilily Ad. and II flldber modfid 8lld approved by lhe Agacy and die Femlsylvallia Depanmmt of Envilonlncmai PrOlll:lion (die "ROD~). 1be ROD set forth cenaiD masures wbicb .wese desi.gned 10 nmectlare COllllllllmdon and nduce lhe porenlial for danger to bmnana ml lhe environmeal arising frOm lhC pieience of die Contaminanll on die Property. With die approval of die Agesy, lbe Owner implemcaled die ROD.

In aceordaa with die requiremems of die ROD, die Owner 1111 apml to subject lhe Property ro·cenain JeSlridioDS relalina IO die use.lbereof·and·m:tivities pamiued cbmon, II is mole specifically set forth below.

" NOW, -THEREFORE. Ow9 declares. for die benefit ofdie Agency. dW die Propeny 8lld any pan tbereof, is and shall hereafter lie held. b'llllferrcd, sold. conveyed and · occapied subjeCa to die ralricdom bminafter set fodh, all or wbicb shall run widi die lml and shall be bindinl upon all panics a.vm, or acqairins any imeresi Wllauoewer in die Property Or 1111)' part lbaeof. .

1. Ralrlcaed Uses. 1be Property may be uicd for any besfacial use. · · provided illat: (a) such bendicial use would not pose a risk to human beahll or potemlal

ecoq1ca1 rec:epron. and <b> die c:omuvaiOn or reiidemial buildinp ~ die Property is prolliblted. Such residcmlial c:ollSbUClicm lball not be deemed to include any buildinp not inleadcd for blamaa livm, space <!:!:. 1mnl. praga or Ille _liR 1n1 permlmid>.

OB30 2116

E-1

ROLL 300 +

00 11117

I.

2. Reslrk:tioos on Excavation. Owner shall noc make. nor allow to be macte. any excavation or disturbance 10 lbe Soil Cap.which result$ in ~ exposure of the Contaminants. without the prior approval or the regulatory agency(ies). As used herein.' the rmn "Soil Cap" refers to the solid waste landfill cap and integraled surface water drainage system which is currently inslalled on the Property for the purpose of containing the Contaminants.

); .Restrictions on the Installation and Use of Wells. Owner shall not inStall, or pennir me'installation or use of. any well(s) ac.ihe PrOpeny,,aild specifically not within the·area hydraulically :ctowngradient.ofthe landfdl between.the landfilled area and the Shenango River, frt>m and after the date hCreof, for domestic purposes including the s~lying of drinking water for human or animal consumption; except. however. that wells may be. installed for the purpose of obtaining water quality· samples. gathering hydrogeolagic informatiojJ: for OlhCr invesligilor)i purp0ses. or as otherWiSe ~ved by the regulatmj' agem:y(les).

. .~ ~

4. ·Notice to Subsequent Holders of Interest. Owner shall cause ill leases, gra1115, and other written tnmsfers of interest by the Owner in the Property to contain a provision expiessly requirins the holder.thCreof. its Sua:eSsors and aisigns. to take siich · · interest subjl:\.'l IO the provisions_'of this Declaration, and settiflg fonh ~-deed _book and page of ieconling of this Dcclaraiion. · · ·

S. . -Termination and Modifrcation. This Declaration may be:.tenninated or modified as to any portion of.the Property only llpl)ll the filing of an instnmnrexcicUted by the Owner ohucb.ponion in the Office of the Recorder ofDeeds of Men:er County, . Pennsylvinia. expressly terminating or modifying thiS DecliratiOn. and 0nly after approYal bythe regulatmy agency(ies); · · · · · · · ·

6. . Severablliry. -Invalidation-of any one of these mrrictions. by jud~ or coun order shall in no way affect any other provisions which,shall remain in full force and effect. ·

1. No Third Pam Benefit. This Decliriltion is made and entered inro for the benefit of the AgenCy. and no other persom or entities will have any right of action under this Declaration or any riJht apinst the Owner by reason of this Declamion. · . . . ·

8. Liabilitt of Owner after Transfer. Upon the transfer of all or any ponion of the Property. the Owner so tmnsferring shall DOt havt any further liabilit)' for any violation of the resiriCtions contained hen:in on die portion sold which shall occur after die . dare of die conveyailce.

-2

0330 21·1i7

\

E-2

-, ./

ROLL 300 +

00 111.17

IN WITNESS WHEREOF. die Owner has executed Ibis Declaration as of dlC date ~ wriuen above.·

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ,PENNSYLVANIA; INC•• a Penn$ylvania Cor,oration' . ,

By: . ' ·. I • ) ,,; J_ . ~· Altest: Jpp{)·; L .&ftl; I tt(..R

Print Name: §usan Delande PrintN*P=*=• _Print Tide:._________ ;Prim Title: Area Director:CJ.ose4 Sites

CoMMONWEALnf OF PENNSYL~ANIA . COUNTY OF MERCER - ·

R,ECORDED ON THIS~ DAY .OF JU~Y. AD.• 2000. INTH_E REC'ORDER'_S()fFICE Of..ME.llCe&.i'OU_ll'ilY AT DOCUMENT NUMBER Ull OR 11217 WITNESS MY HAND A""N:::-D"".'.:TH~E;..;SEA:;.....::L:....O_F.;;;;S:;,;:A=ID=OFF=--IC_E,_. THE D~;YE~ AFORSAID. .

.~d·" RHONDA I. MC'CLELLAND. RECORDER

E-3

.. ROLL 300 +

00 11117

EXHIBIT "A"

Lesal Description River Road Landfill Site

.The "Property"

ALL -.,HAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land situale panly in the City of Hermitage (formerly Hickory Towmhip) and partly in South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania, and bounded and descnlied as follows: ·

COMMENCING at a paint in the center linl: of River Road a/k/a Pennsylvania Route 486 and a/k/a L.R. 43034 in South Pymatuning Tn'.DShip at the Southwest comer_of land of Rose Kedlerine Polanski; wllich poillt is approximately 200 feet ~l1helstwardly along the center line ofsaid road &Om a 1s· culvert c:roSsing said road: thence by an approltimate course ofsoUtb 77 'degrees east along the ioutb line of 18l1d or Rose Katherine Po~anski a diitBnce of 765 feet, more or less, ro the sOutbwesl corner of lands of John and Elizabeth Kantor; •tbeDCe by In ipproxiniate course of north 89 degrees east along the south line e>f Said laDI of Kintc>r a disianee·of37S feet, more or less, to a pc)int in the west line of Herbert and Ruth White; thence by in approiimate ooune of South 1degree ea5t along tbe west line of.aid laad of Wbire adistance of 7SQ feet. more or less, to apoiOi at the .soinhwest comer of White and which point is in the dividing line ~ South Pymatuning Township and Hermitage: dtence by an.approximate course ofnonh 89.~ east along the said dividing line between South Pymatuning Township and Hermilage a distance of 615 feet. more or less. to a point: dtence ,soudlwardly iMo Hennitilge along the \vest line·of lands of Dunham arid the west line _,of landS o(. the Borough of Sbupsville Sewage Disposal Plant a distance·of 870 feet, more or less, tcfaP,int in the noith bank of the Sbtnioao River: 1bencC sc>utbweStwardty along the north bank i>f the Sbe111111So RiVer a ~nee Of 3,250 feet, mote or less•. to a point wbefe McCullough Run enters the Shenango River: thence wesrwanlly along the center line of McCulloup Run a distance of 3SO feet, mon: or less ro a point in the centerline of River Road . in die.middle of a bridge on said road crossing McCullough Run; ~ northeastwardly a10o.g· the ceiiter line of River Raad, crossing the diViding line between South PymaluniDg Township and H~. a distance or 3.2SS feet. 1nore or less. to the place of beginning.

:·, EXCEPTING TIIEREFROM: Lot 2l in RivervieW Estates Plan. Section C, Plan Book 8. Page ll, FrOnting 100 feet on River Road with a depth of 200 feet as conveyed to W,illiam StiJliano et wt by deed dared July I I, 1962 ind recorded In 1962 D.R. 1372; ind Lot 24 iii

· Riverview Estates.Plan, Section C, fronting 100 feet on River Road with a depth of 200 feet-ls conveyed ro Joseph Teglo et us dated March 28, 1966 ml recorded in 1966 D.R. 800.

BGSO 211·9

E-4

... ROLL 300 +

00 11117

ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land siruarc in Sourh Pymaruning Township. Mercer County. Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows:

BEING 1 strip of land 6 feet wide exrending northward from a parcel of land of which Joseph McMumy. late of said township. died seized. abou1618 feet to a public road leading from the Borough of Sharpsville to Bycrly's Corners in said township: bounded on the east by land which G.C. Carnes conveyed to W.D. Lees by deed dated April 11, 1892. being the second parcel therein described. on the west by :i strip which was heretofore used as a lane or alley for ingress and egress to and from other lands; and being the same lands that G.C. Carnes conveyed to the heirs of Joseph McMumy by deed dared April 13, 1892, and recorded in Deed Boot V, Volume S. page 214, in the Recorder's Office of Mercer County, Pennsylvania.

BEING the same premises referred to in the Anicle of Agreement between Bernard N. David 100 Mary Ann David and Eric Disposal Co. recorded with the Mercer County Recorder of Deeds on August 18, 1980 in 80 D.R. 2308.

SUBJECT TO: An Agreement for an easement and right of way to Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority dated July 15, 1974 and recorded in 74 DR 2597 which grants a pcnnancnl casement 20 feet in width for a sanitary sewer line in a location adjacent to and following the course of the Shenango River; an agreement for an easement to Pennsylvania Power Company dated December 31. 1974 and recorded in 75 DR OOS4 which grants an easement for an electric power line erected on towers extendi111 &cnerally from the southwesterly comer of the above described land in a northeasterly direction to the eastern boundary thereof at the Borough of Sharpsville Sewage Disposal Planr.

oa3o 2120

E-5

Appendix F: Ground Water Concentration Trends

Total Arsenic - MW-102A -MW-103A

MW-1CMA - M W-1CM

- W-105 - M -106

l '° +-~~~~-1-~~~~-\-~-+--+~~~~~~~~--::::,,_~~~~-1-~~~~~~~~~~~tt-~~~~~

130 +-~~-1-~~-y~~--J'---+--ll.,::::....~~~~~ ........t---iH-~~-1-~~~~~---~~-tt--t-t~~~~-

-5 j

8

D~te

F- 1

-+- M ·102A ~M -103ATotal Iron

MW-104A - MW-ICM

- M -105 _._MW-106

Dilte

F-3

40

Arsenic, total (µg/L) 2009-2013

so +-------Primary MCL = 10 µg/L

-lt-MW102A

~MW103A

-MW104

-+-MW104A

..,._MW105

- MW 101 {background)

2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 w m ~ m w m ~ m w m ~ m w m ~ m w m ~

F-2

- M

-103A-+- M -102A Total Iron ·10.U - MW-1°'

-105 --+- W-106

Date

F-3

70000 ~

60000

50000

40000

30000

Iron, total (µg/L) 2009-2013

Secondary MCL =300 µg/L

2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 w m ~ m w m ~ m w m ~ m w m ~ m w m ~

....-MW102A

~MW103A

~MW104

- MW104A

.,._MW105

- MW 101 {background)

F-4

-102A - -103ATotal Maneanese W-104A - MW-104

-lOS _._M -106-

~15000 +-~+---+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~-j •i c 810000 +--t-~~---'~f-~+-~ic:-+-t--ft-~-+-~--1+-~~--:-.--~~~~-.-,-~'IC:"'-:-;~~~~:--~H-.......COr--;-~~~

0

Date

F-5

Manganese, total (µg/L) 2009-2013

35000 ---Secondary MCL =50 µg/L

-r-MW102A

-+-MW103A

2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4

-MW104

-,-MW104A

-+-MW105

- MW 101 (background)

F-6

25000

-+-M -102A -e- MW-103A Total Aluminum M -lCMA - -lCM

- M -105 ~ -10fi

D~te

F-7

Aluminum, total (µg/L) 2009-201330000 +------------

25000

Secondary MCL =50-200 µg/L

2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4

-.-MW102A

-+-MW103A

-MW104

- MW104A

...,_MW105

- MW 101 (background)

F-8

Appendix G: Ground Water Contour Map

8-1... ~--~

_,.AllOll-A- -~-\ \

LEGEND - - - Al'PllO'°""'T£91TEPAOPEllTYllOUHONIY

- - - APPROXJtiMT£ LN«>fl.L Ot:SIPOISAl. llOUHDNrY

~- INTEllCEPTOR l.EACHAT£ COU.ECT10N TRBICH & GllOUNOWATEll IWI (lOCATIOH APPROXIMAm

Al MONTOlttNG WEU

RI P!EZOMETEll

RESIDEHTIA&. W&.l

•ti

LAHCfl.l GAS MONITOAJHG LOCATION -tnE 9o STRUC'TUllE

LNCJF._L MOHITORtHO WELL

LNCIF-1.l TOEORAIHWATER MMPl.Nl LOCATION 0 4000 8000

---- GllOUNOWATEll E.EVATIOH CONTOUft (3111 • :111"'201 4)

..... GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

!tW.LOWGROUHOWATER El£VATION !FT MSl.I

SCALE IN FEET

STl#fGAUGE

IEmENTAllOll-8 J : JU Y 14

REV: BY N ECKEO: MW

1\ TETRA TECH

G-1

Appendix H: Ground Water Concentration Data

T able H-1: Total Arsenic Concentration in Ground Water (u.S?/L)

Date 101 102A 103A

Monitoring Well

104A 104 105 106 Mar-99 10 u 10 u 28.S 10 u 12.1 10 u 10 u Jun-99 10 u 17.3 29.7 10.S 18.2 10 u 10 u Sep-99 17.3 39.1 33.8 18.1 10 u 10 u Dec-99 lS.S 40.3 13.4 11.4 10 u 10 u Mar-00 10 u lS.2 17.2 10 u 13.7 10 u 10 u Jun-00 10 u 13.1 24.9 10 u 16.S 10 u 10 u Sep-00 11.3 30.8 17.8 lS.4 10 u 10 u Dec-00 lS.4 34.9 14.S 16.1 10 u 10 u Mar-01 10 u 13.S 23 10 u 10.2 10 u 10 u Jun-01 11.S 20.1 10 u 10.2 10 u 10 u Sep-01 14.4 26.2 11.S 17.2 10 u 10 u Dec-01 10 u lS.2 22.1 13.1 10 u 10 u 10 u Mar-02 10 u 13.3 22.9 10 u 10.8 10 u 10 u Jun-02 10 u lS.S 21.8 10 u 14.1 10 u 10 u Sep-02 16 2S.4 2S 17.1 10 u 10 u Nov-02 11.2 26.S 10 u lS.7 10 u 10 u Nov-02 16.8 26.7 14.3

Nov-02 13 28.6 lS.4

Dec-02 lS 66.4 28

Dec-02 17.9 23.4 14.6

Dec-02 23.9 16.8

Jan-03 10 u 11.1 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u Jan-03 22.6

May-03 10 u 12.2 10 u 10 u 19.7 10 u 10 u Sep-03 10 u 13.6 21.6 10 u lS.2 10 u 10 u Dec-03 16.6 2S.8 10 u 12.9 10 u 10 u Mar-04 10 u 14 20.7 10 u 10.7 10 u 10 u Jun-04 10 u 14.1 2S.1 10 u 12.6 10 u 10 u Sep-04 10 u 14.1 26.6 10 u 12 10 u 10 u Mar-OS 10 u 16.S 24.3 10 u 12.8 10 u 10 u Jun-OS 10 u 13.2 19.7 10 u 13.1 10 u 10 u Sep-OS 16.2 2S.3 10 u 19.4 10 u 10 u Dec-OS 14.6 2S.8 10 u 12.3 10 u 10 u Mar-06 10 u 13.7 23.1 10 u 11.8 10 u 10 u Jun-06 10 u 17 2S.3 10 u 13.9 10 u 10 u Sep-06 10 u 12.S 28.8 10 u lS.1 10 u 10 u Dec-06 10 u 16.2 29.9 10 u 12.9 10 u 10 u Mar-07 10 u lS.S 23.9 10 u 10.4 10 u 10 u

H-1

Monitoring WellDate

101 102A 103A 104A 104 105 106 Jun-07 10 u 14.4 21.60 10 u 13.60 10 u10 u Sep-07 15.2 19.3 10 u 16 11.3 10 u Dec-07 15.3 25.2 10 u 13.7 10 u11.4 Mar-08 10 u 15.5 16.2 10 u 11.7 10. u 10 u Jun-08 10 u 2215 10 u 14 11 10 u Sep-08 16.6 10 u30.1 10 u 17.1 13.4

10 uDec-08 17 31.5 10 u 15.5 12.7

Apr-09 10 u 17.5 10 u17.3 10 u 11.2 10 u Jul-09 17.8 53.6 13.4 10 u15.8 10 u

Oct-09 17.8 32.5 10 u 18.8 13.2 10 u 14.9 10 uJan-10 15.6 10 u 10 u 12.9

13.9Mar-10 17.2 10 u 10 u 13.3 10 u10 u Jun-10 10 u 10 u 12 10 u 10 u10 u 15.6

Sep-10 10 u 10 u 17.6 10.3 10 u15.6

Nov-10 10 u 10 u 15.3 10.6 10 u18.4

Mar-11 10 u 13 10 u10 u 16 10 u Jun-11 10 u 11 10 u10 u 15 10 u Sep-11 15 10 u 16 1210 u

12 10 uDec-11 17 10 u 10 u10 u Mar-12 10 u 10 u 13 10 u10 u 15

Jun-12 12 10 u 10 u 26 1153

10 u 18 10 uSep-12 16 10 u 14Dec-12 10 u 11 10 u 10 u 10 u 12Mar-13 16 12 10 u 10 u10 u

10 u 12 10 uJun-13 14 10 u Sep-13 14 10 u 10 u 10 10 u

12Dec-13 19 10 u 10 u17

12Mar-14 10 u 10 u 10 u10 u 18

H-2

Table H-2: Total Iron Concentration in Ground Water (JLl?/L) Monitoring Wells

Date 101 102A 103A 104A 104 105 106

Mar-99 2360 174 37200 8510 9290 357 1630 Jun-99 3500 129 30800 10800 6950 100 u 220 Sep-99 165 28600 22600 7310 831 100 u Dec-99 122 27600 13100 6990 106 316 Mar-00 922 149 26100 865 7460 324 100 u Jun-00 530 100 u 26600 1110 7680 135 100 u Sep-00 152 20600 11400 7650 398 180 Dec-00 153 21800 10500 8060 108 133 Mar-01 209 152 26300 4720 6830 100 u 100 u Jun-01 173 25800 2570 7760 288 838 Sep-01 144 19800 8430 7850 468 100 u Dec-01 888 144 18700 9790 7840 100 u 100 u Mar-02 757 174 35000 9040 7940 100 u 100 u Jun-02 552 153 28400 3980 9760 105 136 Sep-02 130 25400 5430 7790 25S 165 Nov-02 161 24400 2340 8160 100 u 171 Nov-02 217 28200 7620 Nov-02 145 31700 7600 Dec-02 110 40900 15000 Dec-02 218 26800 8570 Dec-02 25400 9650 Jan-03 157 140 15600 1,780 6840 100 u 430 Jan-03 17600

May-03 110 133 20500 235 7880 100 u 100 u Sep-03 120 161 25800 1,470 7810 100 u 879 Dec-03 133 28500 2,470 7160 100 u 1S9 Mar-04 100 u 208 32000 3040 7440 100 u 100 u Jun-04 lSS 129 27100 lSO 7880 100 u 1490 Sep-04 108 137 19700 471 7410 100 u 114 Mar-OS 118 140 27600 S7S 7210 100 u 100 u Mar-OS 10800 Jun-OS 343 136 16800 3620 7440 100 u 102 Sep-OS 138 13600 1830 7190 100 u 100 u Dec-OS 129 14700 1260 7680 100 u 100 u Mar-06 283 144 20SOO 3320 7490 100 u 100 u Jun-06 684 130 16400 23SO 7360 100 u 242 Sep-06 1S6 1S3 18300 1820 7990 S46 283 Dec-06 100 u 14S 20700 2370 6930 2130 100 u Mar-07 100 u 122 2S600 261 6990 1820 100 u Jun-07 167 118 17200 1740 7370 2080 149

H-3

Monitoring WellsDate

101 102A 103A 104A 104 105 106 Sep-07 144 15400 2500 7260 2000 100 u Dec-07 137 13300 1350 7800 1780 100 u Mar-08 809 141 19400 878 6590 5380 114 Jun-08 1100 160 18200 2300 7800 5900 240 Sep-08 15200 214 2550 7360 2950 100 u Dec-08 140 17800 1680 7110 1350 100 u Apr-09 258 148 16200 538 6430 11300 100 u Jul-09 126 15500 1120 55800 9500 100 u

Oct-09 173 16300 2540 7160 1600 100 u Jan-10 3080 352136 7020 10300 100 u

Mar-10 100 u 127 1080 188 7760 16700 100 u Jun-10 309 150 699 482 6960 10100 100 u Jun-10 699 482 6960 Sep-10 156 4740 1810 6870 2340 245 Nov-10 151 4490 646 7470 1160 100 u Mar-11 280 130 630 310 8300 6100 Jun-11 200 160 2500 450 6800 4000 Sep-11 100 u 4600 1100 6800 2200 Dec-11 100 u 140 320 100 u 5400 5000 Mar-12 100 u 920 100 u130 8600 10500 Jun-12 64100 100 u 2700 160 15000 6700 Sep-12 140 4500 1200 7200 1800 Dec-12 2100 120 880 100 u 7700 3100

120Mar-13 120 8400 740 7200 5400 Jun-13 150 6600 370 8100 1300 Sep-13 170 4700 2600 8400 1100 Dec-13 180 9600 1100 9100 3900 Mar-14 280 110 100 u5600 I\ 6100 5800

H-4

T able H-3: Total Manganese Concentration in Ground Water (J.12/L)

Date Monitoring Well

101 102A 103A 104A 104 105 106

Mar-99 S6.8 18S 6400 1830 7820 76.2 3S6 Jun-99 76.6 193 6210 2SSO 8360 lS u 188 Sep-99 198 S960 2640 9710 22.4 313 Dec-99 208 6270 28SO 8720 42.7 290 Mar-00 29.2 219 S970 1320 7760 34 6S.9 Jun-00 lS u 192 6380 llSO 7SSO lS u 224 Sep-00 180 S710 2670 8730 21.1 432 Dec-00 19S S260 4870 8770 66.9 113 Mar-01 15 u 200 S960 3860 7220 16.1 53.S Jun-01 190 6390 3220 7SOO 66.1 227 Sep-01 209 S710 3S20 9420 217 166 Dec-01 24.S 203 4880 4100 7930 6S.4 lOS Mar-02 20.9 198 7300 3S30 79SO 24.S 8S .6 Jun-02 lS u 207 6820 3370 8930 18.S 97.8 Sep-02 20S 6790 3270 9S70 S7.7 209 Nov-02 208 6S10 2810 8960 19 243 Nov-02 200 6SOO 9190 Nov-02 198 6760 96SO Dec-02 198 6S10 9920 Dec-02 207 6300 9160 Dec-02 4690 10100 Jan-03 lS u 209 1600 20SO 9,870 lS u 21S Jan-03 S270

May-03 lS u 193 S260 946 9,410 lS u 82 Sep-03 15 u 196 S660 2640 9,680 lS u 25SO Dec-03 190 S610 1760 9,270 lS u 362 Mar-04 219 205 S980 1830 8SSO 20.S 216 Mar-04 15 u Jun-04 15 u 201 6420 1610 9890 lS u S98 Sep-04 lS u 202 4920 1490 9770 lS u 602 Mar-OS 15 u 206 S720 947 9690 lS u 80.6 Mar-OS 1170 Jun-OS 15 u 198 4650 2090 9990 lS u 232 Sep-OS 194 3940 1960 10100 101 lSS Dec-OS 194 3S40 1860 9180 107 26.2 Mar-06 lS u 198 4920 1900 9430 6S 60.2 Jun-06 lS 196 4340 2130 9760 46.3 341 Sep-06 l S u 199 4S90 2380 10100 68SO 478 Dec-06 lS u 184 4700 2020 92SO 4820 83.8 Mar-07 15 .u 201 S120 7S4 8S80 2840 43.4

H-5

Date Monitoring Well

101 102A 103A 104A 104 105 106 Jun-07 15 u 200 4830 2180 9820 2910 164 Sep-07 204 4140 2110 10000 2140 166 Dec-07 204 3360 1100 9650 2000 89.5 Mar-08 15 u 196 4260 518 8980 1850 233 Jun-08 20 210 4500 1300 9600 2100 200 Sep-08 4340 233 1600 10100 2010 61.4 Dec-08 196 4460 1070 10000 1580 65.3 Apr-09 15 u 206 4180 300 8890 1980 20 Jul-09 205 4770 880 13600 2540 17.9

Oct-09 225 4260 1250 10900 1500 55.1 Jan-10 213 3270 637 10200 2950 84.4

Mar-10 15 u 204 2950 . 100 10100 2680 24 Jun-10 15 u 210 3230 662 9580 2960 45.9 Jun-10 3230 662 9580 Sep-10 208 3790 789 9480 1940 58.9 Nov-10 213 4710 274 9790 1720 47 Mar-11 15 u 200 1500 15 u 9200 1800 Jun-11 15 u 210 3600 1000 6400 1600 Sep-11 190 3900 1000 8600 1700 Dec-11 15 u 220 2400 110 6300 2100 Mar-12 15 u 200 4000 67 8000 1700 Jun-12 2400 200 4700 270 9000 1300 Sep-12 210 4200 350 8300 1400 Dec-12 64 210 2000 33 7800 1400 Mar-13 15 u 190 5400 140 7300 630 Jun-13 200 4700 410 7900 1000 Sep-13 200 4100 610 8800 1200 Dec-13 220 3000 310 8500 1400 Mar-14 15 u 200 4700 31 7400 430 I\

H-6

T able H-4: Total Aluminum Concentration in Ground Water (ul!/L) Monitoring Well

Date 101 102A 103A 104A 104 105 106

Mar-99 36S 200 u 200 u 48S 200 u 222 200 u Jun-99 1990 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-99 200 u 200 u 212 200 u S70 200 u Dec-99 200 u 200 u 1S80 200 u 236 200 u Jun-00 318 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-00 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 464 200 u Dec-00 200 u 200 u S60 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-01 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Jun-01 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 26S

Sep-01 200 u 200 u 41S 200 u 283 200 u Dec-01 sso 200 u 200 u 1470 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-02 4S3 200 u 200 u 1840 200 u 200 u 200 u Jun-02 331 200 u 200 u 49S 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-02 200 u 200 u 446 200 u 200 u 200 u Nov-02 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Nov-02 200 u 276 200 u Nov-02 200 u 372 200 u Dec-02 200 u S940 2870

Dec-02 200 u 426 361

Dec-02 1490 924

Jan-03 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u May-03 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-03 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Dec-03 200 u 200 u 447 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-04 200 u 200 u 200 u 1380 200 u 200 u 200 u Jun-04 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 630

Sep-04 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-OS 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Jun-OS 238 200 u 200 u 943 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-OS 200 u 200 u 321 200 u 200 u 200 u Dec-OS 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-06 2S8 200 u 200 u 97S 200 u 200 u 200 u Jun-06 S62 200 u 200 u 423 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-06 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Dec-06 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-07 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Jun-07 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-07 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 6S4 200 u Dec-07 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 228 200 u Mar-08 624 200 u 200 u 282 200 u 200 u 200 u

H-7

Date 101 102A 103A

Monitoring Well

104A 104 105 106 Jun-08 964 200 u 200 u 200 u 215 241 200 u Sep-08 Dec-08

200 200

u u

200 200

u u

200 u 200 200

u u

320 200 u

200 '

u ., Apr-09 203 200 u 200 u 277 350 200 u 200 u Jul-09 200 u 200 u 495 22500 200 u 200 u

Oct-09 200 u 200 u 405 373 414 200 u Jan-10 200 u 200 u 200 u 262 200 u 200 u

Mar-10 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 537 200 u 200 u Jun-10 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Sep-10 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Nov-10 200 u 200 u 291 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-11 270 200 u 200 u 220 2300 350 Jun-11 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 500 200 u Sep-11 200 u 200 u 200 u 610 200 u Dec-11 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 260 200 u Mar-12 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 2100 200 u Jun-12 33100 200 u 200 u 200 u 2900 1300 Sep-12 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Dec-12 1400 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u Mar-13 200 u 200 u 460 200 u 580 860 Jun-13 200 u 200 u 200 u 440 200 u Sep-13 200 u 200 u 380 770 200 u Dec-13 200 u 210 240 810 1200 Mar-14 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 200 u 1300

H-8

ORIBINAL Illlllllllll lllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll · 2017. 5. 12. · ORIBINAL I lllllllllll...

Documents

Transcript of ORIBINAL Illlllllllll lllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll · 2017. 5. 12. · ORIBINAL I lllllllllll...