beacon heights, ct rod abstract · 2020. 6. 3. · g. beacon heights, ct. september 23, 1985. rod...
TRANSCRIPT
G BEACON HEIGHTS CT September 23 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Beacon l8icjhc~ Landfill site is located two miles east of the intershysection of Connect icut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut From the 1920s until 1070 the site was known as Betkoskis Dump and consisted of approximacsjy 3x acres on which active dumping occurred According to records at tlaquo Conned icut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) wastes e-cceptec- laquo^ tits dump included municipal refuse rubber plastics and industrial chaampic3lgt nd sludges Landfill operations consisted primarily of open burninvf agtcraquorj -wi-h the burial of noncombustibles In 1970 the Betkoski ppe ro a^d -urJjacent properties totaling 83 acres were purchased by the Wurtha Arxxjkujj Company and the name was changed to Beacon Heights Inc Landfill laquot f--iis time the landfill area was expanded to approxishymately 30 act- s cords of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the landfill engine Ited rubber plastics oils hydrocarbons chemical liquids and slufgfes and solvents as being disposed of at the landfill by the truck nn co u
The selerKJ -i--i gt-dial action for this site includes excavation of Bet-koskis Daisy 2Vi othsr contaminated soils for consolidation on the main landfill prior hltgt closure RCRA capping of the consolidated wastes including gas venting and fcocrawate management controls installation of a perimeter leachate colllaquoctiolaquo system collection of leachate and transportation to a licensed waste vater treatment facility or onsite treatment followed by disshycharge to a tributary of Hockanum Brook extension of a public water supply fencing installation of a more extensive ground water monitoring system and enforcement of State and local institutional controls on ground water use in the impacted area Total capital cost for the selected remedial alshyternative is estimated to bs $17397000 with OampM costs appioximately $235000 par year In addition a Supplescantary Decision Document will be prepared during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment the extent of excavation in the satellite areas and th-^ rxe^d for air pollution controls on the landfill gas vents
PERFORMANCE STANDARD 0 GOALS Wastes will be excavated to background or to alternate levala protective of human health welfare and the environshyment Pre-desiltjr-5fign sampling will be necessary to define the excavation criteria
INSTITUTIONAL CQSTSOLS State and local institutional controls on ground water use will be enforced in the impacted area
COMMENTS 3) Consolidation mdash The Betkoski Dump wastes and contaminated soils and sludges around the site will be excavated consolidated and placed on top of the landfill prior to closure 2) ROD Addendums mdash A ROD Addendum will be prepamprud during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the mariner raquond location of leachate treatment (onsite or off site) the
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (neaie read Instructions on the rtvtne before completing
1 REPORT NO 3 RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO EPARODROl-85010
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5 REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION September 23 1985 Beacon Heights CT 6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S) 8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS 10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACTGRANT NO
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED US Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report_________
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 401 M Street SW Washington DC 20460 80000
IS SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut From the 1920s until 1970 the site was known as Betkoskis Dump and consisted of approximately six acres on which active dumping occurred According to records at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) waste accepted at the dump included municipal refshyuse rubber plastics and industrial chemicals and sludges Landfill operations conshysisted primarily of open burning along with burial of noncombustibles In 1970 the Betkoski property and adjacent properties totaling 83 acres were purchased by the Murtha Trucking Company and the name was changed to Beacon Heights Inc Landfill At this time the landfill area was expanded to approximately 30 acres Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the landfill engineer listed rubber plastics oils hydrocarbons chemical liquids and sludges and solvents as being disposed of at the landfill by the trucking company
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavation of Betkoskis Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closure RCRA capping of the consolidated wastes including gas venting and stormwater management controls installation of a perimeter leachate collection system collection of leachshyate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or onsite treat-
Contaminated Media gw sw soil
(see attached page) _____________ 7
DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
blDENTIFIERSOPEN ENDED TERMS C COSATI FieldGroup
Record of Decision Beacon Heights CT
Key contaminants VOCs benzene chlorobenzcne chloroethane 2-butanone bis(2-chloroethyl)shyether xylenes
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report 21 NO OF PAGES
None __ 20 SECURITY CLASS (This page 22 PRICE
None EPA Plaquorm 2220-1 (Rlaquoraquo 4-77) PREVIOUS COITION is OBSOLETE
BEACON HEIGHTS CT (Continued)
exact extent and coverage of the RCRA cap on the landfill and the extent and depth of satellite areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main landfill and the need for air pollution controls on the landfill gas vents
KEYWORDS Capping Excavation Ground Water Ground Water Monitoring Inshystitutional Controls Leachate CollectionTreatment Soil Surshyface Water Venting VOCs
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Septecber 19 1985
Mr Kicliael DeLaad B-figicaal Administrator U S EPA JTK BuildingBoston Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr DeLand
The state of Connecticut co^cun in the resadial actions for the Beacon Heightg landfill ugt presented in the feajiSllity study znd as discussed in thlaquo meeting letveen the EA laquond DZ on September 12th The state is taking eteps to establish funding for- i ts coat tearing proportion of the remedial action xad agrees to provide the op ar at ion laquond aaintenance costs for this project
yours
Andersoa for Stanley J Pac Coooissiooer
JACD
Prmns a Agtenulaquo
RECORD OF DECISION REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE Beacon Heights Landfill Eearcn Falls Connecticut
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am tasing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Eeaccn Heights Landfill site
1 Remedial Investigation f c r the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut April 1985 prepared for US EPA Region 1 by ^US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
2 Fec^sibility Study for the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut August 1985 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
3 Survmary of Remedial Alternative Selection (attached)
4 Conmunity Relations Respcnsiveness Summary (attached)
5 Renedial Action Master lar for the Beacon Heights tandfill si-e Beacon Fails Connecticut June 1984 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by Carrp^ Dresser and McKeeT^Inc Boston Massachusetts
7 The National Oil ana Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 40 CFR Part 300
8 40 CFR Part 264 Standards for Owners ard Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED R5MEDY
REMEDY
- Excavation of Betkoskis Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closure
- RCRA capping of the consolidated vastes including gas venting ( with air pollution controls if determined necessary during design ) and storrawater management controls
- Installation of a perimeter leachate collection system
- Collection of leachate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or or-site treatment followed by discharge to a tributary of HcckarLiri Brook
- Extension of a public water supply along SVoVorat Road to the next municipal supply and along Blackberry Kill Read to the demographic limits
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Installation cf a rore extensive cr-undwater monitoring system
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance will induce lavmirowirg cf the grass cover overlying the cap inspection and repair of the cap repair of damage to the security fence re-oval of obstructions front the stormwater management and gas venting systems and regrading as necessary Monitoring will include sampling anc analysis of upgradient and cowncradient nonitoring veils and surface waters and collected leachate Operations will include collection of leachate and transport to an offsite facility cr operation of an onsite treatment faclity (To be decided curing design phase)
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of IS 3C-lt CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 303] I have determined that at the Beacon Heights Site a full RCRA-approved cap leachate collection and creatnent at an spprrvec offsite facility or on-site treatment and discharge to an unnamed tributary of Hockanum Brook extension of municipal water -supply Icng-terir groundwater monitoring and institutional co-trcl= en groundwater usage and other rethods dascribed above are the cost-effective remedies which provide adequate protection cf public health welfare and the environment
The State of Connecticut has been consulted and concurs with the selected remedy In addition ~re acticn will require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued -effectiveness of the remedy Leachate treatment will be considered part of the approved acticn and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period of up to two years frcn the completion of the cap and leachate collection syse- All o~her cperaticn and maintenance activities will be eligible for Trust Fund monies for one year after completion of the source control remedial action
I have also determined that the acticn being taken is appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites
EPA will utilize the pose closure monitoring data to detershyirine the need for an additional rereci s1 investigationfeasibilitystudy to evaluate offsite gro-ndwater contaminant migration If additional remedial actions are dee ~ed necessary a Reccrc o Eecision will be prepared for approval of the ure remedial action
In addition a Supplementary Eeci =icn Document will be pr =shypared for the signature of che Regiora 1 -cninis-rator during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment ( orsit e cr offsite ) the extent of excavation in the satellite arees anc the need for air oollushytion controls on the landfill gas vent
Date recicjnal Administrator
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (neaie read Instructions on the rtvtne before completing
1 REPORT NO 3 RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO EPARODROl-85010
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5 REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION September 23 1985 Beacon Heights CT 6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S) 8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS 10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACTGRANT NO
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED US Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report_________
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 401 M Street SW Washington DC 20460 80000
IS SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut From the 1920s until 1970 the site was known as Betkoskis Dump and consisted of approximately six acres on which active dumping occurred According to records at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) waste accepted at the dump included municipal refshyuse rubber plastics and industrial chemicals and sludges Landfill operations conshysisted primarily of open burning along with burial of noncombustibles In 1970 the Betkoski property and adjacent properties totaling 83 acres were purchased by the Murtha Trucking Company and the name was changed to Beacon Heights Inc Landfill At this time the landfill area was expanded to approximately 30 acres Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the landfill engineer listed rubber plastics oils hydrocarbons chemical liquids and sludges and solvents as being disposed of at the landfill by the trucking company
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavation of Betkoskis Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closure RCRA capping of the consolidated wastes including gas venting and stormwater management controls installation of a perimeter leachate collection system collection of leachshyate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or onsite treat-
Contaminated Media gw sw soil
(see attached page) _____________ 7
DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
blDENTIFIERSOPEN ENDED TERMS C COSATI FieldGroup
Record of Decision Beacon Heights CT
Key contaminants VOCs benzene chlorobenzcne chloroethane 2-butanone bis(2-chloroethyl)shyether xylenes
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report 21 NO OF PAGES
None __ 20 SECURITY CLASS (This page 22 PRICE
None EPA Plaquorm 2220-1 (Rlaquoraquo 4-77) PREVIOUS COITION is OBSOLETE
BEACON HEIGHTS CT (Continued)
exact extent and coverage of the RCRA cap on the landfill and the extent and depth of satellite areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main landfill and the need for air pollution controls on the landfill gas vents
KEYWORDS Capping Excavation Ground Water Ground Water Monitoring Inshystitutional Controls Leachate CollectionTreatment Soil Surshyface Water Venting VOCs
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Septecber 19 1985
Mr Kicliael DeLaad B-figicaal Administrator U S EPA JTK BuildingBoston Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr DeLand
The state of Connecticut co^cun in the resadial actions for the Beacon Heightg landfill ugt presented in the feajiSllity study znd as discussed in thlaquo meeting letveen the EA laquond DZ on September 12th The state is taking eteps to establish funding for- i ts coat tearing proportion of the remedial action xad agrees to provide the op ar at ion laquond aaintenance costs for this project
yours
Andersoa for Stanley J Pac Coooissiooer
JACD
Prmns a Agtenulaquo
RECORD OF DECISION REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE Beacon Heights Landfill Eearcn Falls Connecticut
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am tasing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Eeaccn Heights Landfill site
1 Remedial Investigation f c r the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut April 1985 prepared for US EPA Region 1 by ^US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
2 Fec^sibility Study for the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut August 1985 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
3 Survmary of Remedial Alternative Selection (attached)
4 Conmunity Relations Respcnsiveness Summary (attached)
5 Renedial Action Master lar for the Beacon Heights tandfill si-e Beacon Fails Connecticut June 1984 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by Carrp^ Dresser and McKeeT^Inc Boston Massachusetts
7 The National Oil ana Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 40 CFR Part 300
8 40 CFR Part 264 Standards for Owners ard Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED R5MEDY
REMEDY
- Excavation of Betkoskis Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closure
- RCRA capping of the consolidated vastes including gas venting ( with air pollution controls if determined necessary during design ) and storrawater management controls
- Installation of a perimeter leachate collection system
- Collection of leachate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or or-site treatment followed by discharge to a tributary of HcckarLiri Brook
- Extension of a public water supply along SVoVorat Road to the next municipal supply and along Blackberry Kill Read to the demographic limits
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Installation cf a rore extensive cr-undwater monitoring system
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance will induce lavmirowirg cf the grass cover overlying the cap inspection and repair of the cap repair of damage to the security fence re-oval of obstructions front the stormwater management and gas venting systems and regrading as necessary Monitoring will include sampling anc analysis of upgradient and cowncradient nonitoring veils and surface waters and collected leachate Operations will include collection of leachate and transport to an offsite facility cr operation of an onsite treatment faclity (To be decided curing design phase)
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of IS 3C-lt CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 303] I have determined that at the Beacon Heights Site a full RCRA-approved cap leachate collection and creatnent at an spprrvec offsite facility or on-site treatment and discharge to an unnamed tributary of Hockanum Brook extension of municipal water -supply Icng-terir groundwater monitoring and institutional co-trcl= en groundwater usage and other rethods dascribed above are the cost-effective remedies which provide adequate protection cf public health welfare and the environment
The State of Connecticut has been consulted and concurs with the selected remedy In addition ~re acticn will require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued -effectiveness of the remedy Leachate treatment will be considered part of the approved acticn and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period of up to two years frcn the completion of the cap and leachate collection syse- All o~her cperaticn and maintenance activities will be eligible for Trust Fund monies for one year after completion of the source control remedial action
I have also determined that the acticn being taken is appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites
EPA will utilize the pose closure monitoring data to detershyirine the need for an additional rereci s1 investigationfeasibilitystudy to evaluate offsite gro-ndwater contaminant migration If additional remedial actions are dee ~ed necessary a Reccrc o Eecision will be prepared for approval of the ure remedial action
In addition a Supplementary Eeci =icn Document will be pr =shypared for the signature of che Regiora 1 -cninis-rator during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment ( orsit e cr offsite ) the extent of excavation in the satellite arees anc the need for air oollushytion controls on the landfill gas vent
Date recicjnal Administrator
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
BEACON HEIGHTS CT (Continued)
exact extent and coverage of the RCRA cap on the landfill and the extent and depth of satellite areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main landfill and the need for air pollution controls on the landfill gas vents
KEYWORDS Capping Excavation Ground Water Ground Water Monitoring Inshystitutional Controls Leachate CollectionTreatment Soil Surshyface Water Venting VOCs
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Septecber 19 1985
Mr Kicliael DeLaad B-figicaal Administrator U S EPA JTK BuildingBoston Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr DeLand
The state of Connecticut co^cun in the resadial actions for the Beacon Heightg landfill ugt presented in the feajiSllity study znd as discussed in thlaquo meeting letveen the EA laquond DZ on September 12th The state is taking eteps to establish funding for- i ts coat tearing proportion of the remedial action xad agrees to provide the op ar at ion laquond aaintenance costs for this project
yours
Andersoa for Stanley J Pac Coooissiooer
JACD
Prmns a Agtenulaquo
RECORD OF DECISION REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE Beacon Heights Landfill Eearcn Falls Connecticut
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am tasing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Eeaccn Heights Landfill site
1 Remedial Investigation f c r the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut April 1985 prepared for US EPA Region 1 by ^US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
2 Fec^sibility Study for the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut August 1985 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
3 Survmary of Remedial Alternative Selection (attached)
4 Conmunity Relations Respcnsiveness Summary (attached)
5 Renedial Action Master lar for the Beacon Heights tandfill si-e Beacon Fails Connecticut June 1984 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by Carrp^ Dresser and McKeeT^Inc Boston Massachusetts
7 The National Oil ana Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 40 CFR Part 300
8 40 CFR Part 264 Standards for Owners ard Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED R5MEDY
REMEDY
- Excavation of Betkoskis Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closure
- RCRA capping of the consolidated vastes including gas venting ( with air pollution controls if determined necessary during design ) and storrawater management controls
- Installation of a perimeter leachate collection system
- Collection of leachate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or or-site treatment followed by discharge to a tributary of HcckarLiri Brook
- Extension of a public water supply along SVoVorat Road to the next municipal supply and along Blackberry Kill Read to the demographic limits
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Installation cf a rore extensive cr-undwater monitoring system
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance will induce lavmirowirg cf the grass cover overlying the cap inspection and repair of the cap repair of damage to the security fence re-oval of obstructions front the stormwater management and gas venting systems and regrading as necessary Monitoring will include sampling anc analysis of upgradient and cowncradient nonitoring veils and surface waters and collected leachate Operations will include collection of leachate and transport to an offsite facility cr operation of an onsite treatment faclity (To be decided curing design phase)
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of IS 3C-lt CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 303] I have determined that at the Beacon Heights Site a full RCRA-approved cap leachate collection and creatnent at an spprrvec offsite facility or on-site treatment and discharge to an unnamed tributary of Hockanum Brook extension of municipal water -supply Icng-terir groundwater monitoring and institutional co-trcl= en groundwater usage and other rethods dascribed above are the cost-effective remedies which provide adequate protection cf public health welfare and the environment
The State of Connecticut has been consulted and concurs with the selected remedy In addition ~re acticn will require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued -effectiveness of the remedy Leachate treatment will be considered part of the approved acticn and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period of up to two years frcn the completion of the cap and leachate collection syse- All o~her cperaticn and maintenance activities will be eligible for Trust Fund monies for one year after completion of the source control remedial action
I have also determined that the acticn being taken is appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites
EPA will utilize the pose closure monitoring data to detershyirine the need for an additional rereci s1 investigationfeasibilitystudy to evaluate offsite gro-ndwater contaminant migration If additional remedial actions are dee ~ed necessary a Reccrc o Eecision will be prepared for approval of the ure remedial action
In addition a Supplementary Eeci =icn Document will be pr =shypared for the signature of che Regiora 1 -cninis-rator during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment ( orsit e cr offsite ) the extent of excavation in the satellite arees anc the need for air oollushytion controls on the landfill gas vent
Date recicjnal Administrator
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Septecber 19 1985
Mr Kicliael DeLaad B-figicaal Administrator U S EPA JTK BuildingBoston Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr DeLand
The state of Connecticut co^cun in the resadial actions for the Beacon Heightg landfill ugt presented in the feajiSllity study znd as discussed in thlaquo meeting letveen the EA laquond DZ on September 12th The state is taking eteps to establish funding for- i ts coat tearing proportion of the remedial action xad agrees to provide the op ar at ion laquond aaintenance costs for this project
yours
Andersoa for Stanley J Pac Coooissiooer
JACD
Prmns a Agtenulaquo
RECORD OF DECISION REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE Beacon Heights Landfill Eearcn Falls Connecticut
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am tasing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Eeaccn Heights Landfill site
1 Remedial Investigation f c r the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut April 1985 prepared for US EPA Region 1 by ^US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
2 Fec^sibility Study for the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut August 1985 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
3 Survmary of Remedial Alternative Selection (attached)
4 Conmunity Relations Respcnsiveness Summary (attached)
5 Renedial Action Master lar for the Beacon Heights tandfill si-e Beacon Fails Connecticut June 1984 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by Carrp^ Dresser and McKeeT^Inc Boston Massachusetts
7 The National Oil ana Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 40 CFR Part 300
8 40 CFR Part 264 Standards for Owners ard Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED R5MEDY
REMEDY
- Excavation of Betkoskis Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closure
- RCRA capping of the consolidated vastes including gas venting ( with air pollution controls if determined necessary during design ) and storrawater management controls
- Installation of a perimeter leachate collection system
- Collection of leachate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or or-site treatment followed by discharge to a tributary of HcckarLiri Brook
- Extension of a public water supply along SVoVorat Road to the next municipal supply and along Blackberry Kill Read to the demographic limits
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Installation cf a rore extensive cr-undwater monitoring system
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance will induce lavmirowirg cf the grass cover overlying the cap inspection and repair of the cap repair of damage to the security fence re-oval of obstructions front the stormwater management and gas venting systems and regrading as necessary Monitoring will include sampling anc analysis of upgradient and cowncradient nonitoring veils and surface waters and collected leachate Operations will include collection of leachate and transport to an offsite facility cr operation of an onsite treatment faclity (To be decided curing design phase)
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of IS 3C-lt CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 303] I have determined that at the Beacon Heights Site a full RCRA-approved cap leachate collection and creatnent at an spprrvec offsite facility or on-site treatment and discharge to an unnamed tributary of Hockanum Brook extension of municipal water -supply Icng-terir groundwater monitoring and institutional co-trcl= en groundwater usage and other rethods dascribed above are the cost-effective remedies which provide adequate protection cf public health welfare and the environment
The State of Connecticut has been consulted and concurs with the selected remedy In addition ~re acticn will require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued -effectiveness of the remedy Leachate treatment will be considered part of the approved acticn and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period of up to two years frcn the completion of the cap and leachate collection syse- All o~her cperaticn and maintenance activities will be eligible for Trust Fund monies for one year after completion of the source control remedial action
I have also determined that the acticn being taken is appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites
EPA will utilize the pose closure monitoring data to detershyirine the need for an additional rereci s1 investigationfeasibilitystudy to evaluate offsite gro-ndwater contaminant migration If additional remedial actions are dee ~ed necessary a Reccrc o Eecision will be prepared for approval of the ure remedial action
In addition a Supplementary Eeci =icn Document will be pr =shypared for the signature of che Regiora 1 -cninis-rator during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment ( orsit e cr offsite ) the extent of excavation in the satellite arees anc the need for air oollushytion controls on the landfill gas vent
Date recicjnal Administrator
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
RECORD OF DECISION REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE Beacon Heights Landfill Eearcn Falls Connecticut
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am tasing my decision primarily on the following documents describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Eeaccn Heights Landfill site
1 Remedial Investigation f c r the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut April 1985 prepared for US EPA Region 1 by ^US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
2 Fec^sibility Study for the Beacon Heights Landfill site Beacon Falls Connecticut August 1985 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by US Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
3 Survmary of Remedial Alternative Selection (attached)
4 Conmunity Relations Respcnsiveness Summary (attached)
5 Renedial Action Master lar for the Beacon Heights tandfill si-e Beacon Fails Connecticut June 1984 prepared for the US EPA Region 1 by Carrp^ Dresser and McKeeT^Inc Boston Massachusetts
7 The National Oil ana Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 40 CFR Part 300
8 40 CFR Part 264 Standards for Owners ard Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED R5MEDY
REMEDY
- Excavation of Betkoskis Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation with the main landfill prior to closure
- RCRA capping of the consolidated vastes including gas venting ( with air pollution controls if determined necessary during design ) and storrawater management controls
- Installation of a perimeter leachate collection system
- Collection of leachate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or or-site treatment followed by discharge to a tributary of HcckarLiri Brook
- Extension of a public water supply along SVoVorat Road to the next municipal supply and along Blackberry Kill Read to the demographic limits
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Installation cf a rore extensive cr-undwater monitoring system
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance will induce lavmirowirg cf the grass cover overlying the cap inspection and repair of the cap repair of damage to the security fence re-oval of obstructions front the stormwater management and gas venting systems and regrading as necessary Monitoring will include sampling anc analysis of upgradient and cowncradient nonitoring veils and surface waters and collected leachate Operations will include collection of leachate and transport to an offsite facility cr operation of an onsite treatment faclity (To be decided curing design phase)
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of IS 3C-lt CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 303] I have determined that at the Beacon Heights Site a full RCRA-approved cap leachate collection and creatnent at an spprrvec offsite facility or on-site treatment and discharge to an unnamed tributary of Hockanum Brook extension of municipal water -supply Icng-terir groundwater monitoring and institutional co-trcl= en groundwater usage and other rethods dascribed above are the cost-effective remedies which provide adequate protection cf public health welfare and the environment
The State of Connecticut has been consulted and concurs with the selected remedy In addition ~re acticn will require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued -effectiveness of the remedy Leachate treatment will be considered part of the approved acticn and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period of up to two years frcn the completion of the cap and leachate collection syse- All o~her cperaticn and maintenance activities will be eligible for Trust Fund monies for one year after completion of the source control remedial action
I have also determined that the acticn being taken is appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites
EPA will utilize the pose closure monitoring data to detershyirine the need for an additional rereci s1 investigationfeasibilitystudy to evaluate offsite gro-ndwater contaminant migration If additional remedial actions are dee ~ed necessary a Reccrc o Eecision will be prepared for approval of the ure remedial action
In addition a Supplementary Eeci =icn Document will be pr =shypared for the signature of che Regiora 1 -cninis-rator during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment ( orsit e cr offsite ) the extent of excavation in the satellite arees anc the need for air oollushytion controls on the landfill gas vent
Date recicjnal Administrator
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
- Collection of leachate and transportation to a licensed waste water treatment facility or or-site treatment followed by discharge to a tributary of HcckarLiri Brook
- Extension of a public water supply along SVoVorat Road to the next municipal supply and along Blackberry Kill Read to the demographic limits
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Installation cf a rore extensive cr-undwater monitoring system
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance will induce lavmirowirg cf the grass cover overlying the cap inspection and repair of the cap repair of damage to the security fence re-oval of obstructions front the stormwater management and gas venting systems and regrading as necessary Monitoring will include sampling anc analysis of upgradient and cowncradient nonitoring veils and surface waters and collected leachate Operations will include collection of leachate and transport to an offsite facility cr operation of an onsite treatment faclity (To be decided curing design phase)
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of IS 3C-lt CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 303] I have determined that at the Beacon Heights Site a full RCRA-approved cap leachate collection and creatnent at an spprrvec offsite facility or on-site treatment and discharge to an unnamed tributary of Hockanum Brook extension of municipal water -supply Icng-terir groundwater monitoring and institutional co-trcl= en groundwater usage and other rethods dascribed above are the cost-effective remedies which provide adequate protection cf public health welfare and the environment
The State of Connecticut has been consulted and concurs with the selected remedy In addition ~re acticn will require future operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued -effectiveness of the remedy Leachate treatment will be considered part of the approved acticn and eligible for Trust Fund monies for a period of up to two years frcn the completion of the cap and leachate collection syse- All o~her cperaticn and maintenance activities will be eligible for Trust Fund monies for one year after completion of the source control remedial action
I have also determined that the acticn being taken is appropriate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites
EPA will utilize the pose closure monitoring data to detershyirine the need for an additional rereci s1 investigationfeasibilitystudy to evaluate offsite gro-ndwater contaminant migration If additional remedial actions are dee ~ed necessary a Reccrc o Eecision will be prepared for approval of the ure remedial action
In addition a Supplementary Eeci =icn Document will be pr =shypared for the signature of che Regiora 1 -cninis-rator during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment ( orsit e cr offsite ) the extent of excavation in the satellite arees anc the need for air oollushytion controls on the landfill gas vent
Date recicjnal Administrator
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
EPA will utilize the pose closure monitoring data to detershyirine the need for an additional rereci s1 investigationfeasibilitystudy to evaluate offsite gro-ndwater contaminant migration If additional remedial actions are dee ~ed necessary a Reccrc o Eecision will be prepared for approval of the ure remedial action
In addition a Supplementary Eeci =icn Document will be pr =shypared for the signature of che Regiora 1 -cninis-rator during the design phase to justify the decisions reached on the manner and location of leachate treatment ( orsit e cr offsite ) the extent of excavation in the satellite arees anc the need for air oollushytion controls on the landfill gas vent
Date recicjnal Administrator
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION FOR
BEACON HEIGHTS LANTJFILL SITE BEACON1 FALLS CT
September 20 1985 US Snvirormental Protection Agency EOS-C- Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Location and Description 1
S ite H istory 2
Current S ite Status 3
Enforce-ent Analys is [EPA Ccnf ideit ial] 8
Alternat ives Evaluat ion 8
Alternat ive = 1 9 Alternative = 2 10 Alternat ive = 3 14 Alternat ive t 3A 10 Alternative pound 33 15 Alternative = 3C 16 Alternat ive bull=4 17 Alternat ive = 5 18 Alternat ive = 6 11 Alternative = 7 11 Alternat ive = 8 12 Alternat ive = 9 18 Alternat ive = 10 19 Alternative = 11 ^ 12 Alternative = 12 T 13 Alternat ive = 13 19
Cormunity Relations 20
Consistency with Other Env ironoental Lavs 7 21
Reccrmanded Alternat ive 23
Operation and Maintenance 25
Schedule of Events 27
Future Act ions 28
APPENDICES
A - Site Location
B - Site Contaminants
C - Reined ial Alternative Cost Data
D - Community Relations Rssponsiveness Su-rrajry
E - Enforcement Analysis [EPA Confidential]
F - Connecticut Cost Share Letter
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
LIST Or FIGURES ANT) TABLES
Fcard after Page
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 1
F igure 2 - Sample Locat ion Map 4
Figure 3 - Flow Paths Figure 5
Figure 4 - List of lteirnatives 9
Table 4-1 - General Response Actionse 9
Table 4-2 - Eliminated General Response Act ions 9
Figure 5 - RCRA Cap Extent 15
Figure 6- Quantity Estimates for RCRA Cap 15
Figure 7 - RCRA Cap Cross Section 15
Figure 8 - Extent of Waterline 18
Figure 9 - Extent of Waterl ine 18
Figure 10 - Recorame^nded Alternative Cost Sunmary 26
Figure lOa - Cost Summary for Leachate Treatment Options 26
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill site
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the intersection of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls Connecticut -Access 0 the lardfill is from Blackberry Hill road about 3500 feet frcra this reads intersection with Route 42 The landfill occupies approximately 30 acres of an 83 acre property within the lower Kaugatuck River valley The site sits atop a ridge southeast of the intersection of Skokorat and Blackberry Hill roads Apprcx imately 21 homes border the site to the west along Skokorat road and 23 homes lie to the north along Blackberry Hill road in an area of low residential density The closest residence is about 8JO feet avay on Blackberry Hill Road The site is located within the Kockanum Brook drainage area Hockanun Brook which is 05 miles northwest of the landfill flows down toward the Kaugatuclt river w^-ich is two miles west of the site Gravel pit operations also exist in this area one northwest of the site the other to the northeast Both are_ approx inanely 05 miles from the lardfill Residences on Skokorat road as well as those above a recently in-stalled water nain-^n Blackberry Htll road have private water supplies The site layout and location is further delineated on the maps presented in appendix A and figure 1
The entire site lies outside the 100 year floocclain of Hockanum Brook and neither includes nor borders any --etland areas
Groundwater in the region occurs in both the unconsolidated deposits till and drift ana in the bedrock Based on regional estimates of 47 inches of prec ip it at icn and 22 inches of evapotransshypiration annually approximately 25 inches of precipitate contact the landfill Of this arount 12 inches is discharged as surface runoff which allows 13 inches tc percolate into the fill material This percolate becomes contaminated fro- contacting the wastes prior to recharging the unccnsolidated and bedrock aquifers andor discharging as leacrate at seeps at the base cf the landfill as illustrated in Figure 3
Groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated aquifer contributes to the base flow of Hockanun Brook anc to the flow of its two tributaries which flow north frcm the site and eventually join the Naucatuck River The shallow urccnsol idated aquifer also provides vater for a number of residential wells in the area
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Cn c bullH H e
ntia
0 T3 -p -H p bullH cr c G)euroC o PS 0 _j 2
O5ri ltu (U4J -pbullK _ 3 (0 rC
ilf amin
c| ) 5w
d il y^sectampsect^^ sect2 bullH 0 X bullH 0 4J
14J n (0 4J CJ 2 a c
laquo^ ( Gi o 0 lt h3 0
1 ) bull X
sect1 c o H -P (0o o
-P -H Wl
1)-1 3
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
2)
SITE HISTORY
Frcm the 1920s un t i l 17G -he site was known as Betkoski s Dump and consisted of a p p r o x i m a t e l y c a c r e s of act ive d u m p i n g in the northwest corner of the exis t ing sits According to records at the Connec t icu t Department cf E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection (CT D E P ) the ciump accepted a v a r i e t y cf w a s t e i n d u c i n g m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e r ubbe r plastics and i n d u s t r i a l chemica l s and sludges Operat ions consisted primari ly cf open b u r n i n g along with burial of ncnshyoombust ib les Problems cf wine blown litter and smoke fror cpen b u r n i n g were reported cu r ing this per iod In 1970 the Be tkosk i property and adjacent properties total irj 83 acres were purchased by the Kur tha Trucking Ccmpany and the name was chanced to Beacon Heights Inc- Lancf ill The l and i i i l l area was expanded co approximately 30 acres using excavated soils for daily cover material Records of the CT DEP including a 1973 report by the L a n d f i l l engineer listed rubber p las t ics oils hydrocarbons chemical l iquids and sludges and sciverts as being disposed at the landf i l l Site operations reportedly ceased in 1979 with two exceptions Wastewater treatment plant sludge was spread aver large areas of the site unti l 19pound3 Also a very small r e f u s e t r ans fe r station fo r n e i g h b o r i n g Hethany res idents r e m a i n s in operation immediately inside the access gate
Several pools of l iquid as well as evidence of open b u r n i n g are visible on the site in aerial prococjiaphs taken in 1965 In addition other aerial photographs taker in 1963 1970 and 1875 7is ibly document the l ancf i l l expans icn An engineering geology study of the landf i l l completed in Apr i l 1973 stated that reechshyate production was occur inc Another doc-omen ted release of --shycontaminants to the environment was a sampling of surface wa~teuro r near the site in 1979 The results fro- zhis sanple were 30 parts per billion (ppb) chloroform 110 ppb ethyl acetate 400 ppb methyl acetate and 30 pro methyl ethyl ketore Releases of contaminants to the air groundwater arc surface water surrounding the Beacon Heights Landf i l l are fur ther documented in the remedial investigation report prepared by NUpound Corp and are discussed f u r t h e r herein in the Current Site Status section
During the period of opera t ions f r c m 1970 to 1979 both munishycipal wastes and industrial wastes and rofuse were disposed of by landfill ing The Connecticut DEF rtor itcred and permitted site operations dur ing this period and issued a series of Adminisshytrative Orders to the owneroperator to perfom engineering-geoshylogical studies to remedy alleged perrit violations related to unauthor ized acceptance cf industr ia l wastes disposal in unauthor ized areas surface water ccntaninat ion fron leachate mig ra t ion inadequate cover and others
These activities culminated in a Consent Order to close the f ac i l i t y T^y July 1 1979 This Consent Order was signed by the president of Beacon He igh t s Inc on Curc 20 1979 and entered as a f i n a l Order of the C o n n e c t i c u t Corm is s Loner of Env ironrental Protection on July 24 1979 The closure requirements of the Order which included placement of f i n a l cover and implementation
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
of a crcurdwater monitoring system vere never implemented On Decenter 4 1979 the CT DEP inspecrea the Beaccn Heights Landfill anc reported that landfill operations haa ceased
o response actions have teen tike- at the site by EA or th-= CT CE However the D2P has beer providing bottled water to 2 hones on Skokorat Road since yrcvemirar 19c4 after their veils were found to be c ortariratei ii ove levels considered aceptable for drinking water ty the Connecticut Department of Health Services
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site consists of twc overlapping waste management areas Thgt3 na in area formerly operated by Beacon Heights Incorporated occupies approximately 30 acres of an 33 acre property Visually it is a large mound with elevations ranging frcm 550 to 718 ft above mean sea level The depth of waste ranges from 0 feet at the toe to 40-60 feet near the top Eased on comparisons of current and old topographic maps i~ is estimated that 650000 cuoic yards of waste comprise the bciy cf the landfill Due to the random codisposal o municipal refuse and industrial wastes it is not possible to identify specific locaticns of hazardous materials within the landfill rass
The second area of disposal is rDvrn as the former 3etkoski Dump This smaller 6 acre area is located ironed iately adjacent to the landfill to the northwest of the site access read (see figure 2) although portions of it extend beneath the access road and beneath the Beacon Heights lancf-ill area
The following summary hydrologic profile of the landfilf explains the surface water and groundwater migration pathways for contaminant migration from the site Precipitation percolates into the fill materials and becotes contaminated from contact with the wastes This contaminated water (leachate) flows through the perrteable refuse until it contacts the less perneable bedrock Sone leachate then flows downward irtc the shallow bedrock system under the influence of gravity while the rest flews at the interface of the fill and becrcclt until it exits the landfill at one of the leachate seeps Some leachate entering the bedrock flows downgrad ient in the upper fractured zone until the gradierts are such that allow this leachate tc discharge as seeps at the base cf the landfill in local crouncwater discharge areas At two of the three major seep areas the leachate is collected by a crude channel that runs alone ore side of the site until its juncture with a stream The stream transports the leachate offsite through a former gravel pit operation vhere a portion of the stream percolates into the grcuri to recharge che shallow aquifer The remainder of the leachate entering the bedrock f 1 DV-S along the most transrr iss ive fractures to the regional discharge area the Naugatuck ivr-r loated to the northwest of the site
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(4
During the remedial irvesr iga- ior RI) sarples of leachate were analyzed as the most d irect indication cf the contar irant source since no other specific wasie ra-erials could be sarrpled ie liquid wastes lacocn wases ezc Three irajor seep areas were identified sampled end analyzed The sarrple results indicated significant cortaminat icn vitr vclatile orgarics as well as some acid extracta le ~c-~3u-cs The primary cortarr inants were benzene (35100 ppb max) chlcrcbenzene 5310 ppb max) chloroethane (1450 ppb na ) 2-b Jtarore (5090 ppb max) and b is ( 2-chloroethyl )ether 4630 ppb rax Specific sample locashytions and concentrat iors ae further defined within the raps and tables of Appendix B and Figure 2 of this document
Fifteen groundwater monitoring wells were installed at various locations surrounding the sice Eoth u-corscl iclatec and bedrock wells were installed Sampling and analysis of these wells indishycated significant contamination in four wells two in the unconshysolidated deposits two in bedrock The other veils contained trace levels of both basereutral and vclatile organic chemicals One set of the significantly contaminated wells (one bedrock one unconsol idated) is located approximately 40(1 feet downgradient and the other set approximately 10 DC feet cowncradient of the landfill Benzene was detected ir these fcur wells at concenshytrations up to 850 ppb Chlorobenzene and chloroethane were also detected at levels up to 797 ana 131 ppb respectively Bis( 2-chloroethyl )ether wa$gt also found aplusmn levels up to 4360 ppb
Water samples were alo collected from 44 private residential wells along Blackberry Hill and Skokora Reads adjacent to the landfill These wells werlt5 considered ~o provide another good indication of off site groundwater cent ari-nant migration from^-the landfill given the lack of any other apparent sources between the hones and the landfill Analysis of these water samples indicated that two residential wells were contaninated with 48 and 131 ppb of benzene respectively Fcllcwup sampling confirmed these results with levels of 22 and 98 ppb in the second round and 42 and 89 ppb in the third round Other res idences sampled had trace levels of contamination belcw current drinking water standards A complete listing of all residential well results can be found in Appendix A to the feasibility study
A tributary to Hockanum Brook (the largest surface water stream in the area) drains the northern part of the landfill This stream was contaminated with benzere (49 ppb) chlorobenzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and iron (89000 ppb) This tributary stream accepts discharge frcm a channel which drains both surface runoff and le^cha~e frcm tre landfill The tributary is free of contamination upstream of the landfill (See figure A-2 in Appendix A of this document for details)
Results of limited air samples analyzed for volatile organics and soil samples analyzed for C3s dioxin and heavy metals indicate no apparent health hazards at the current site as a result of inhalation of volatile crcanic compounds or airborne contaminated particulates However there are volatile organic emissions as noted in Table 3-3 of
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
2
V
2 c 0
i
lt ^ Zo o z_J o
u LJ _l Z 5
--bullj-shy0- Z Ij (J U _J 1 2 gt- u
in 5 cc z LJ z lt UJ 5cc u Io o ou o c Xz c
CH
ATE
N
il G
RIN
3 ujO _j 2^ LJ lt VJ
-Q $ 31ui r Et a
Zlt 55iijiij Si S gt j H CO lt cU
in lt CC CO So o 2 u ^2 O bullr 15 _j z tf UJ 55 o o Oo O ui -1 CC
trade IfiS z - c lt -i lt3sect t lt bull5 cr
a U0 S_)cn cr iltz c^laquo
AS S5 1ot- j j -J
(D CD G3 ST 0 o j-1iE sLJi _l
u_jlt iV)
bullV-z bullg laquo5bullBu ogI o
tl mdash ~poundiffiff f r- LC
01 gtshye go H
feB- pound io L_ Cr O L sectr
LiJ 1
LJ lt040
-s=
to] 8lt UI CQ
UJ
S a UJ iHI o vgtCO
COIshyo
o o
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Appendix B as reported in the I Irerefore should onsite actions require breaking into the fill or excavation of satellite areas additional monitoring would e required
Thus the major exposure patrwBy ~c human receptors from the release of hazardous substances fro- -he site is the ingestion of contaminated groundwater withdrawn frcm either the unconsolidated aquifer or the bedrock aquifer -cir cf which are contaminated with benzene chlor obenzere chloroeta es is ( 2-chloroethyl) ether
xylenes end ether hazardous compounds These two aquifers provide water for 44 homes along Skokoraz and Blackberry Kill Roads Assuming 38 occupants per residence approximately 167 people utilize private wells drawing water fro~ these aquifers for drinking water- and other domestic uses
The aforementioned hycrologic setting of the landfill provides a pathway for contaminant releases frcm the site to reach these wells As shown bull in Figure 3 the landfill is situated in a local recharge area for the uncorsol icatec aquifer which discharges to Hockanum Brook The estimated gro_ rdvater velocity in this aquifer is approximately 52 feet per year The residences are within approximately 12 mile (2640 fee^) frcm the landxill the closest is within 800 feet Since significant con tan inat ion has already been found in the unconsolidated monitoring wells at distances of 400 and 1000 feet frcm the landfill it is evident that the area residential wells which craw fron re urj^onsolidated aquifer are threatened by continued offsite nicraticn of contaminants from the site
Contaminant flow in the fractured bedrock also threatens the nearby residertial wells which drav fror -the bedrock aquife^shyAgain referring to Figure 3 the lardf ill is sited in an are~a which provides recharge to the bedrock aquifer which discharges locally to Hockanum Brook and regionally to the Naugatuck River CT DEP records indicate that the uncorscl idated deposits in the filled areas vere removed prior to landfill ing for use as daily cover material Thus the wastes vere placed directly on the bedrock surface thereby providing a pathway for leachate to enter the bedrock fractures Outs ce the waste management areas the unconsolidated aquifer recharges the bedrock aquifer ie there is downvard flow of water anc ccntarninants from the unconshysol idated deposits into the bedrock Once contaminants enter the bedrock by either means local flow paths arid velocities cannot be defined since they are governed by fracture spacing and directions interconnections c the fractures and local disturbances such as pumping However the regional flow direction is north-northwest toward Hcckanura Brook and the Naugatuck Rivor The residences on bcth Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads art- within the flow paths cf contaminated groundwater and could be impacted at any time
Two bedrcck residential wells en Skokorat Road were found to be significantly cortam inatec with benzene a human carcinogen during the remedial investigation performed by NUS In three separate sampling rounds in the sumrer and fall of 1984 and the
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
COhshy^ lt
m G
01 -H t
O o
Z) COo t-cc x C5 O Lu UJ O X CO
Q- i_Ll
5 m
1^U hshy
lt O o o F LI_ UJ
scc
Ishy
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
winter of 1985 benzene levels in -he two wells v-ere 48 and 131 ppb 22 and 98 ppb and 42 and pound9 pzb No federal drinking water standard has beer set for oenzere -he SPA Office of Drinking Vater has set a STAFL (Surges zed No Adverse Response Level) of 70 ppb to protect against chrcn ic systemic toxic ity Jfrom long term ingestrcn The S1IARL does not consider carcinoshygenic ity however The career r is bull associated with ingest ion of benzene at 131 ppb is 19-3 x 10~~ lifetime excess cancers ie 2 excess cancers above rorrral career rates for every 10000 people ingesting this corpcurd over a 7 year lifetime Should -he levels in the residential wells reach the 860 ppb measured in off site monitoring wells the cancer risX would increase proportionately Benzene is ubiquitous at the site having been found in groundwater^ leachate surface water soils and air and the concentrations in offsite grouncwater can be expected to increase over time as the plumes spread further out from the site
The above findings prompted the Connecticut Department o~ Health Services to notify the occupants of the two residences that their well water was unfit for human consumption since the Denzene levels were substantially in excess of that Departments guideline of 1 ppb Subsequently the CT DSF has provided bottled ater to the two residences under the provisions of Connecticut Public Act 85 - 407
Other contaminants defected in the residential wells by KUS include methylene chloride 11 d ichlcrce thane bromod ichlororiethane tcylene tr ichloroethene chloroform b is( 2-ethylhexyl )phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate Although current levels of these contaminants are belov federal and state -guidelines for drirvk-Lng rfater significant leels of many of these same contaminants nave been found in both ieachate and cffsite groundwater and thus the levels in tne residential wells could increase over time as contaminant plumes migrate further from the landfill source A complete listing of the critical contaminants and their associated threshold and ronthreshold effects is presented in Tables B-4 and B-5 of the Feesioility study Report prepared by NUS (See Appendix E of this document for additional inforshymation)
Leachate discharges and contaminated surface runoff from the site have also degraded the small tributary of Hochanum Brook which drains the site Both the brook and its tributaries aro classified by the CT DEP as 3A meaning that the desired classishyfication is A but that the current status approximates B due o the effects of waste discharces on stream quality Samples taken from the tributary in the fall cf 1984 at a location approxshyimately 800 feet downstream of the leachate discharge point wore contaminated with benzene (49 ppb) erloroberzene (95 ppb) bis(2-chloroethyl)ether (420 ppb) and 12 dichlorobenzene (10 ppb) and the streambec is heavily discolored from the high iron content of the leachate
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
The allowable level of chemical cor taminarts in Class A streams is de te rmined by General cl icy 11 cf the Conneuroct icu t Water Quality S t anda rds and Cr i te r ia alcptec on September 9 193C This policy s t a t e s that the waters hall be f r e e from cheuro~ ice l consti tuents in concentra t ions or ccrnib in at icns which would l e har~npoundul to human a n i m a l or aquatic l i f e f gtr the most sensi t ive arc governing water use c lass Cr i te r ia for chemica l co-st i tuen t 5 con t a ined in Guideshyl ines pbl ished by the U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protect ion Agency shall be considered
EPA has issued water qua l i ty cr i ter ia for benzene and for b is (2-chloroe thyl )e ther pu r suan t to C 3 C 4 ( a ) ( l cf trie Clean V7a-er Act 33 U S C 1 3 1 4 a ) i ) [See Federal Register Volume 45 Xuirber 231 November 2 3 1 9 8 0 ) These criteria are discussed separately for each -contaninant in the follow i~g excerpts from that Federal Register
Benzene For the nax irnium protect ion cf human health from the po ten t i a l c a r c inogen i c e f f e c t s due to exposure to benzene through the ingest ion of contaminated water and con tamina ted organisms the ambient water concentrat ion shculd te zero based on the non-threshold a s s u m p t i o n for this chemical However zero level iray net be at tainable at the present tine Therefore the levels that may result in incre-ent_al increase of cancer risk over the l i fe t ime are est imated at 10~5f 10~~6 an3 io~7 The corresponding criteria are 66 ppb 65 ppb and 0 6 6 ppb respectively If the above estimates are rrade for consu7rp_plusmn_ion of aquatic organises only excluding consuitrpt ion of water the levels are 400 ppb 40 ppb and 4 ppb respectively
3is(2-chloroethyl)ether
For the maximum protection cf human health from the po t en t i a l ca rc incgen ic e f f e c t s due to exposure to bis(2-chlorcethyl)e ther through ingest ion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organises the arbient water concentration should be zero based on the non-threshold assumption for this chemical However zercgt level -ay not be at tainable at the present tirre Therefore the levels v h i c h nay result in incremental cancer risk over a l i f e t i m e are estimated at 10~5 10~6 ard 10 The corresponding criteria are 3 fb 03 ppb and OC-3 ppb respectively If the cbcve estimates are race for consunpt ion of aquat ic o rgan i sms on ly e x c l u d i n g consumption of water the levels are 136 ppb 136 ppb and 136 ppb respectively
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Thus the attainment cf Class A s-ancards is threatened by the leachate disharge It is rotec hat tne aforementioned contaminant levels were measured at a point BCD fee downstream of the actual disharge point Sampling could rci e conducted closer to the discharge point because the s~rea~ erters an underground culvert immediately after the discharge poiri Were this location accessible to sampling the contar irart levels -cjld be expected to oe higher than at the downstream sampling lorazior
Finally the presence of exposed leachate anc ccntarinated soils primarily at leachate seeps presents a potential direct contact hazard from incestion or dermal contact Specific data on the conpounds present ir these areas can be foind in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility Study Report and ir Appendix 3 of this document
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Included as an EPA enfcrce-ent confilential document in Appendix E
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study has addressee both source control remedial actions and offsite remedial actions Source control actions ae appropriate since suos-anc ia_l_ concentrations of hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were originally located and inadequate barriers exist 1o retard the migration of hazardous substances irtc tire environment (Seemdash40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(2) of the NC) Off site remedial actions_ were also evaluated since contaminants have migrcted beyond~the area where they were originally located Furthermore source control actions may not in and of themselves mitigate anc minimize damage to public health welfare and the environment (See 40 CFR sect 30068 (e)(3) of -he NCP)
Objectives
The objectives of the remedial action are to reduce the generation of contaminated leachate ard thereby mitigate future groundwater and surface water ccntanirat ion to minimize offsite migration of contaminants via surface runoff to ninimize direct human contact with contaminated soils on site and to assure a safe drinking water supply for area residents These objectives may be achieved by source control actions supplemented by offsite actions To meet these broad objectives the landfill wastes must be isolated to mininize contact with qroundwater and surface water and to prevent human and animal exposure
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Develcpzent of Alternatives
The remedial a l ternat ives for tie Beacon He igh t s L a n d f i l l were developed and evaluated using 40 C F R lt 30068 ( g ) ( h ) ( i ) ana (j of the NCP as guidance
The f i r s t step in developing he remedial action alternatives was ~c consider the wide ranee of ^ c s s i r l e methods for r e m e d y i n g releases at any site and then to se lec t those rethocs which were applicable to the stated objectives of remediation a~ the Beacon H e i g h t s L a n d f i l l site Table 4-1 L i s t s the general response methods considered appropriate for evaluatr c- at this site Table 4-2 lists those thac were rejected as inappropr ia-e The methods listed in Taole 4-1 were then combined to forrr the 13 reirec ial action altershynat ives listed in Figure 4 Al te rna t ives 1-8 are source control actions alternatives 9 - 1 3 are ofsite actions
Initial Screening
The thirteen alternatives w e r 2 screened based en the criteria in 40 C F R sect 30068 (h) of the N F ie cost e f f ec t s of the al-errat ive and acceptable e n g i n e 3rir g pract ices
The following is a brief c iscuss ior of those alternatives that were e l iminated from detai led evaluat ion and the reasons for the elimination Please note al-eTat iv-s-s are numbered as presented in Figure 4
Alternative Number 1 Off site Disposal in an Approved Facility This al-ernative includes excavation of all contaminated materials disposal in an of fs i te RCRA-approvec l a n d f i l l backf i l l ing and revegetation of the excavated areas and installation of stormwater management controls The total oresert worth cost cf this alternative is $101257000 with an initial capital cost of 5100459000 This alternative is roughly twice -he cost of the next cheapest source control alternative Although technically possible this alternative is not a reliable means of addressing the site prcblens Implenentation could require 3 to 7 years or rcre depend ing en the avai labi l i ty of an approved landfill Currently there are no approved facilities located in Connecticut or New England Furthermore the excashyvated wastes may require extensive rehandling to rreet the landfill sites requirements on free liquid content solvent content or some wastes ray be encountered which vculd not be accepted even after rehandl ing
S ign i f i can t short tern adverse inpacts could also result from the implementation of this a l ternat ive Excavation of 7 0 0 0 0 0 cubic yards of waste would result in sub s t a r t i a l amounts cf contaminated surface runoff and leachate nicraticn which would be extremely d i f shyf i c u l t if not impossible to contrcl Add i t i ona l l y increased volashyt i l izat ion of both hazardous organic compounds and -ethane from garbage decomposition could cause local air emission problems
Selection of this alternative would also not comply with the
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
- a-ure
CATEGORIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION CF ^EVEDIAL ACTC ALTERNATIVES BEACON HEIGHTS LADrli_ SITE
-- z A mdash ic n -eieivs
Site eriedicic n Alternatives
Cffs i te ~ s r c E a l i r an Apcrcved Lancf i i i
2 Cnsits | -c ~6 3 t on
3 RCPA Cosjrs vith Cap Leachate Coiecticn ard Treatment to NPDES Stendarcs
4 Onsite FCPA Lspdfill Leachate Collection 3rj Treatment to NPDES Standards
5 Onsite F3P-A Landfill Leachate Co 6Cticn ard Treatment to Drinking Water Cuallty Standarcs
5 Soil Co^sr LsAChate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards
7 No-Acticn mdash
3 Limited Jc-Action vith Long-Term ^ flonitoring
Water Supply Jternatives
9 Public vater supply provided to extended area (Skokorat Road to next municipal supply =Ilaquo ckserry Hill Read to cenogrip-ic limits)
10 Public v-ater supply provided to affected area (poundti = l coverage on Skokorat Road)
Groundvater Alternatives
11 Grcundvatar Extraction and Treatment to Drinking V ater Quality Standards
12 Ad-itioral Groundwater Hydrogeologic invsstigstirn
13 Limited c-Action vith Monitoring
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Tpoundble 4-1
GENE-RAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AMD ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SiTE
Cene -e Response Action
Me Ac on
Containment
Pumzing
Collection
Diversion
Complete Removal
Crsi= Treatment
Cffsi3 Treatment
Offsits Disposal
Cnsite Disposal
^Alternative Vater Suppv
bull oci icab9 3eTgted3l Tech ncloaies
Monitoring
Grouncwster containment barrier Capping
Onsite groundvater pumping - extraction Offsite grouncwate pjrping - elttracion
leachaie collection Gas vents Gas collection systems Sedimentation basins Trench drains Pipe collection systsrrs
Regrading and revegetation Diversion channels bull mdash
l-xcavation of landfill vaste material including ~ ioils sediments and liquid wastes
Waste incineration - RC=A Ieachate treatment - physical oherrical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
Waste incineration - RCA Ieachate treatment - ohysicai chemical biological Groundwater treatment - physical chemical biological
RCRA Landfill
RCRA Landfiil
Municipal water system Individual treatment devices New wells
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
_ s t v raquo _ U)
gtbull pound _gt- ^ ^ ~ - i ~IT X X o ^ gt
^ _ c r^ mdash ~ ^P bull n v ~ 5 bull C3 laquo 2 bull i
ltJ laquo c w laquo ^ J3 f- O ~ bullmdash 3 C -P O _o bull^ c ^ i-= 5 ~ r mdash73 ^z poundL_ ~Z bullbull ^ uQ o gt ^ P PE E a - 5 ^ o^ in bulltrade bull77 gt c gtbull c mdash Cl 0 mdash ~ - Tr ~ ~ T3 a r bull c
^ O mdash ^ mdash o mdash mdashca 5 mdash 5 mdash IO uin 10 w ^ bull bull~ (si $ 5 CJ C c mdash
l_ o ~ C pound gt laquo_u gt- f-^ in in in laquomdash Trf r^V^JO ^ ~ ^ bullbullmdash in laquo- J2 _ mdash bull5 o Q ~ 0 tis gt o c ^ re ~ in lt^ mdashshy in bullbullP C r ~^ cc 5^ c C ^ 5 - c a) 0) 0 O -= laquo L- bullJO x w ll0 2 5 gt v 5 O tfu O laquoblaquo 3 2 C laquoCE p 0 bull^ oa
^r u mdashindu
stria
1 c
omr
irjeo
lorjy
nplo
mon
V5 ^gt coca c reE ^ 1 c ^ =gt
[fect
iven09 L^c c
_0OCOJP r co P 5 o ino laquo^
+^ p M ct C in _Uu O O C iJt aP0 0 5 5bull3 laquo b laquoo 2 Pc- i 5 cac p j_ 1 CX o WV) mdashmdash ~ laquo- t- cc bullC 3 0 0a u IB ~
The
codi
spos
al o
Site
or
rem
edia
tii
Sur
face
wat
er r
uiOlaquo^
The
codi
spos
al ou
Not
npp
licah
lo t
o ra gtbull 0 P
b oo mdash
J5
gtbull c
tiP C
JE A
CIIO
NS
AN
D
^IIN
OLO
GIE
Si| IL
L S
ITE
in _
gtshyo 5 u ^
- o L ^ V c c
(JCD 4^
0 r deg2 bdquo 0^3 CO
p u ~ 735H laquo c
w 5U c _cen 3^10 0bullc
i 2 ^ -3
_ o c in C
o o en 8 gtbullc
L _
2 2 ifi 3
is C3
1C3 5 ltn rar Olaquo^ CD mdashc p
^ sect ^ C _gtbull
O p1shy
c0 Cw 0
$ h =cs
loQ zz iO c_
fN|
0)
fO H
3laquo mdash c yj z o ~jjj ui Z
^S2pr- U a5 W Zlt2
in o c _o o pjro ltD
CO bullaCD E
T3 O co p fclmdash
CO
2bull= vgt 3 C5 CO O
en 0)
2 O =
P = ^ _ ini_O^ bulla
22 5 V)3 2
in = o
fillsects = is (0 tshy C -I W
pound g_
c c
pound a
c 5
c
c 5 cc
cgt ccjx
olaquoo E
So
0)
TO C
2 0 C - = ra c reg Pbull laquo Is laquo= sectisrll lt5 5 o o jQ a co2 _j
c o
CDin pO cin ogt cr
ca ltu pv O
^-^ p0)pound p CO 4^ c O O
pO in v_ C gt C
cgt
c c c
c
c p cd
copoundra o
wCO
shyo E ra oi_H o
shy laquo S ~ = O
c o p
3
u
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
0
V3 ^^_ ~ mdash O c a ~o re C3 ~20 trade~ ^~ 2
u 5 d -1 mdash mdash CO CJ ^ - ^ mdash _pound o ^ 5 a i d mdash _^ ~~ raquo^ mdashbull
co o _^ mdash 73 - mdash shy
bull3 co o -iy C p
bull
trade mdash^ mdash ^0 Oraquobull o CO c ^ mdash ^ mdash ^3
bull3 CO o li mdash zz ^
2 ~ c 5 o u 73 a d ^ ~ mdash ^ 3 ogt 5 (C a 3 S -^^ Q o oco CO mdashs 3 laquora o E ^
O 5 c c 3 gtbull ^ ^ ^
3 gt^gtc d ~ ^ re E bullbulllaquo 3 C ~ c
mdashmdashO to x X 0 laquo^ cO
bull 0 S 3 laquo^ 0mdash Z
hnol
ogie
s a
u oo -w^ ct o i L_
^T - gtbull c Su
rfac
e
O3 ra Cc
lt 00
iro l
onip
onii=3 C3 _w
ive v
olum
e i
rial
was
tes
inol
ogie
s
was
tos
at
3 3
o gt O5 1i
|3 bull3 3o u bull-o gtB C CO uco u o 3 C0 ok
If to 3 05 w laquo (0 a 0- ^3 c ^E 5 bull3 c 7^ C o0 oCO CO JD 05 o 305 laquo c 0 03 c wc1
C gtshy0JT c C1HH gt CO - raquobull bull
v 2
CO ^ c _o o
0 o
ra bull3 O C 0rlaquo^
o J2
CO^laquo c 0)Ebullu
tfi 05k_
tj3k_ 0
c o Ebull3 c 3 O c E
Uot
tlod
bulln_laquo C
CO 3 cpound bull3 w ra O o a
gt u
Al)
ovo-
cj
c iO ce
2C3bullo
mdash ^ 5 o
ok_ o
opound a
o ^^
Rolo
cntit
C IT Cw CD c_o P E c c E O1 -|ilaquo r c- rr mdash
_ lt Z lt 5 ltc L mdash i= 5 w
-Ec
o
c c co
05 Q
cnlto O
o_gt Q c
o
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
CO
statutory restrictions or c f fs i te disposal under CERCLA sect 101 ( 2 4 ) It is not the cost e f fec t ive a l t e rna t ive it is not necessary to protect public health w e l f a r e and -he env i ronment end it would not create addit ional disposal c a p a c i t y Based on the u n c e r t a i n feasibi l i ty of securing an approved disposal site the potential adverse environmental impacts of u n e a r t h i n g transporting and redisposing of such a large anvcurt cf was te the extended t i~eframe for implercentc t ion and the excessive cost relative tc the other alternatives v ithout correspond ing b e n e f i t this a l ternat ive was e l imina ted from detai led eva lua t ion
Alternative Number 2 Orsite Inc inera t ion This remedial action involves the excavat ion of =11 contaminated materials including the main landfil l the Betkcski Dump and peripheral contaminated Jsoils Following excavat ion the waste would be burned in four- portable incinerators A f t e r incineration all ash and non combustibles (estimate at 200 000 cubic yards) would be disposed in an ens ire RCR-- landfi l l This is the most complex of all 13 alternatives to jtplenent
The reliabili ty and thus engineer ing feasibi l i ty of this al ternative ilt highly questionable cue to the heterogenous nature of the waste material and its nixtire wi th large quanti t ies of soil and debris his would hinder the abi l i ty of the incinerators to e f fec t ive ly destroy the hazardous ccns t iLuents and would likely result in a high incidence of naifunctions and downtime Short term adverse Impacts to air quality fron mal funct ions and poor destruction e f f i c i e n c y cculd also gte expected and could pose a potential threat to public health In -addition a minimum-poundgtf 3 to 4 years would be required for implementation ~~
The total capital ccst of this al ternative is 551201000 with a total present worth cost of S64055000 Based on the engineering infeasibility cf burning the contents of the entire 30 acre 650 000 cubic yard landf i l l in a safe e f fec t ive and timely manner and the possibility cf short term adverse impacts to public health this alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluat ion
Alternative 3A RCRA Closure with a Cap No Leachate Collection or Treatment Postclcsure Moni-cr inc This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except the perrneter leachate collection is onitted Initial capital cost is 5 14 326 000 and total present worth cost is $ 15193010 See Tacle C-3 for cost comparison wi th other options under Alternative 3) The CT DEP requested an evaluation of this alternative oased on their opinion that a RCRA cap woul3 so dramatical ly euro leachate production that a collection system would not be needed Based on water balance calculations it is expected that leachate would be produced at least init ial ly at a rate cf approximately 5000 gallons per day This rate of leachete production wil l most likely decline a f te r capping once the presently saturated wastes wi th in the landf i l l have dewaterec However the degree to which leachate
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(ii
production will drop and the time required to do so cannot be accurately predicted Since no cap may be engineered to be completely impermeable and since waste will reiraii beneath the cap lecichate will cortinue to be produced in somdashe amount If not collected this leacrate will be a concinuirg source of contamination to grou-dwater and surface waters Thus this alternative doe not provide adequate control of source rr-terial as required by 40 CFR sect 3C5E h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been cropped from cons iderat ion
Alternative Number 6 Scil Cover Leachate Collection and Trearaert to Drinking Water Quality Standards Postclcsure Monitor ing In this alternative the entire site will be covered with a soil cap leachate collection and treatment will be provided and gas venting and storm water management systens will be installed The soil cover will consist of two feet of till raterial and a s ix inch loan layer to maintain vegetation The purpose of the soil cover is to reduce contaminated surface water runoff and to reduce some of the infiltration that subsequently generates leachete The amount of leachate reduction will depend on the imperneability of the cap Even though leachate producticn wculd be reduced this soil cap would permit a substantial arrount (10000 to 20000 gallDrs per day) of leachate to be produced as a result of the infiltrated precipitation Ihis alternative would cortrol the discharge of leachate and contaminated runoff into surrounding surface waters but would allow continued releases of contaminants to crcurdvater The initial capital cost of this alternative is $6175000 with a total present worth cos-t of 58277000 --shy
Continued leachate production under this alternative poses an cicoing threat to the environment and to the public health and -herefore does not meet the site objectives Due to inadequate control of loachate production ^h is action does not constitute adequate control of source material as required by 40 CFR sect 3006E (h)(2) of the NC and therefore has been dropped from further consideration
P-lzernative Number 7 No Action This alternative represents the baseline against which all other c^lternat ives are to be compared The objectives for site remediation described earlier are based on the conclusion that the current anc future potential risks to public health welfare and the environment are unacceptable These risks were identified in che Feasibility Study Report and n the Current Site Status section of this document The Ko Action altershynarive provides no source cortrol measures and no measures to minimize and mitigate the cffsite migration of contaminants As such it will not reduce leachate generation and subsequent migration of cortarr inants into grouncwater and local surface vater and thereshyfore --ill rot reduce the ouolic health threat fro- inrestion of
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
corta~irated groundwater or the public health and environmental threats fron continued surface water contaminat ion It also will not reduce the potential health threat associated with direct conshytact w i t h contaminated soils and water at leachate breakouts ( seeps)
In surmary the no actioi al ternative would not achieve adequate cortrcl of source material and would not minimize nor mi t iga te the the threat of harm to human hea l th - -e l fa re or the environment as r e q u i r e d under 40 C F R sect S C O 6 r 2] of the KC Therefore t i is a l ternat ive was eliminated frorr detai led evaluation
Alternative Number 8 M o n i t o r i n g This al ternat ive is a forir of the no action al ternative As such it does not include const ruct ion activities tc remediate site contaminat ion but instead provides for developing and m a i n t a i n i n g a long-term monitoring program The results of the monitoring program would be evaluated to t rack any adverse impacts tc the publ ic health andor env i ronmen t and c identify a point at which rerec ial act iv it ies nay be required Monitoring includes the sarpiing and analysis of several newly installed wells as well as sampling the residential groundwater and surface waters on a quar ter ly basis over a 30 year period The initial capital ccst for this alternative is S 2 7 2 0 0 0 with a total present worth ccst of 51 969 000 This noni-crinc alternative does not provide for more immediate actions to remedy contaminant migra t ion or eavere impacts to public health and the environment It does not min imize continued release of contaminants to the grouncwater ncr does it provide a long tern solution for adequate source ccntrcl Aga in based on 40 CFi sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC -his al-ternative does not --shyconstitute adequate contrcl of source material Based on this reason as well as those outlined in a l te rna t ive 7 above this al-ernat ive has been dropped from fur ther consideration in the cetalec analysis
Alternative Number 1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment to Cr inking Water Quality Standards A groundwater extraction systiir vas developed to r it icate the -hreat to huiran health caused by tiie offs i te migration of contaminants into drinking water aquifers This alternative includes the installation of approximately 70 bedrock extraction wells Each well vould haye its ovrn purping systiir These pumps will discharge tc a main line that leads to a -r-jatrert unit The treatrent u n i t would use a combination of air s t r ipping and carbon adsorp t ion to process the f l ew This process would operate for at least a 20 year period or unti l remedial c l eanup goals are met (backg round bull= gt irum Concentra t ion Limi t s - M C L s or -ternate Concentrat icn Limits - A C L s as required under RCRA)
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(13
Extraction of contaminated crcundwater frcra deep fractured bedrock is not a proven practice In addition site specific geologic and hydrolocic conditions coirpl icate the design and implementation of an extraction syster The bedrock fractures in the area have predominant vertical dips This is readily visible on the abundant bedrock outcrops surround irg the site This fact severely complicates tre s it irg of extract icn wells With a vertical fracture system tre probability of intersecting the fractures with vertical extraction veils is remote and near misses will render the well useless since unfrectured impermeable rock prevents water flow Pumping wells that do intercept fractures would only draw water frcm those particular fractures and any intershyconnected fractures To circumvent -his problem an enormous number of wells would be required However the probability of intercepting all fractures carrying contaminants from the site would still be remote and any fractures that were missed would continue to provide a conduit for centarinant rigration from the site thereby rendering the eitire system ineffective ( See Table C-2 for estimated costs )
Removal of contaminated groundwater from the -h in glacial till material is technically feasible although very difficult Even if removal of groundwater con taninsticn fron he till material could be achieved leachate would continue to enter the fractured bedrock beneath the landfill for subsequent migration offsite Thus the threat to the environment and f-ublic health would not be adequately mitigated
Due to the technical infaasibility of groundwater extraction from deep fractured bedrock and the inadequate niiig-ticn of the public health threat provided by extraction an3 treatmerpound- of contaminants from the unconsoLidated aquifer this alternative was eliminated from further ealuatior
Alternative Number 12 Additional Groundwater Eydroceologic Study This additional hycrogeolcg ic study alternative was developed to collect additional data to better design an effective groundwater extraction and treatment system An additional hydrogeologic study would provide mere information on bedrock conditions However the existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydrogeologic setting of the landfill precludes effecshytive interception and extraction cf contaminated groundwater Therefore this alternative cannot provide for minimization or mitigation of threats to public health and the environment from the offsite migration of contaminated groundwater and it was eliminated from further consideration
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(14)
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives regaining for detailed evaluation are discussed belcv A detailed analysis of these a l ternat ives vas perforned in accordance with 40 C F R sect 300 68 (i) of the Nat iona l Contingency lir INC wh ch requires ccns iderat ion of technical feasibi l i ty de t a i l ed cost est imation inc lud ing d i s t r i b u t i o n of costs over tine constructibility effect iveness in addressing environmental v e l f a r e and public heal th concerns and adverse env ironmental impacts and measures for mi t i ga t i ng those impacts
In response to comments received by the CT DE the PRPs ana others on the d r a f t Feasibi l i ty Study Report three modi f i shycat ions to Alternative 3 were developed These options relate to whether or not leachate is collected and if collected whether to treat onsite or of fs i te As indicated in the attached Fizure 10 the range in total project costs ancng the options is small enough that it does not a f f e c t the choice of a recommended source control alternative from among the remaining Alternatives 3 4 and 5
The remaining o f f s i t e remedial alternatives include Alternatives 9 and 1C which would extend the municipal water supply to a limited (10) cr an extended (9) area Alternat ive 13 would deal with o f f s i t e groundwater contamination via long tern nonitoring coupled w i t h ins t i tu t ional controls Costs for all alternatives including long term costs are included in Appendix C of this document
Alternative Number 3 RCRA Cap Leac-hate Collection and-pound)nsite Treatment Postclosure Monitoring Th is alternative involves1 closure of the landf i l l with a RCRA capping system along with the implementashytion cf postclosure monitoring requirements The Betkoski Dump wastes and -cnta- inated soils and sludges around the site wi l l be excavated consolidated and placed en top of the landfil l prior to closure These satellite areas are shallow in depth (approximately 3 to 15 f e e t ) and lie directly over bedrock Pastes in these areas will be excavated to background cr to alternate levels protective of human h e a l t h w e l f a r e and the envi ronment Predes igrces ign sampling wil l be necessary to define the excavation criteria A Decision Document wil l te prepared at that tirae to document the cost-effltjctiveness of the selected approach The steep sideslopes on the north side of Be-kosk i s Durrp preclude the ability to ef fec t ive ly cap this area and provide leachate col lect ion thus necess i ta t ing consolidation Ileacnate will be treated onsite and discharged to a tributary of Hockaru- Brook The site wi l l be enclosed wi th a fence and new ncni tcr ing wells will be installed to monitor the effect iveness of the cap as required by 40 C F R sect 264 Subparts ( F ) ( G ) and ( N )
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 1 5 )
A l andf i l l gas venting syster vill also be installed to prevent the bu i ldup of gasses uncer the cap The need for air pollution controls on the vented gasses vculd oe e v a l u a t e d cur ing des ign The init ial capital cost fcr this a l t e rna t ive is pound15 4 3 9 0 0 0 w i th a 30 year total present wor th cost of 517 155000 The proposed area of capping ard the ex ten t of the leachate collection system are shown in Figure 5 Trie q u a n t i t i e s of rater ials fcr const ruct ion of a r ult imedia cap are cut l i r ec in Figure 6 A cross section of tie proposed cap is shown in Figure 7 A cost summary of all leachate col lect ion srf t rea tment opt ions included under Alternatives 3 3A 33 ana 3C ca be found in Figure 6a and in Appendix C Table C-3 of this dcciment
This alternative sat isf ies all of the object ives for source control Consolidation cf the ou t ly ing contaminated soils wi th the main landf i l l followed by capping that l andf i l l will elininate the direct contact threat and the off s i re migrat ion of contaminants via sur face r u n o f f Instal la t ion cf = c =p which meets the requireshyments of RCRA will minimize the fu tu re production of leachate which in tu rn wil l m i n i m i z e fu tu re crouncwater contaminat ion and surface water contamination The provision of = perimeter leachate colshylection and treatment system will ensure adequate source control of the ma jo r i ty of the leach = t-3 w h i c h w i l l be generated a f t e r capping dur ing the period of tine required for the presently saturated wastes to cewater and the s m = l l amount of leachate which will be generated by lealtage tnroj-a-n the cap
Alternat ive 3B RCRA Cap Leacha te Col lec t ion Of fs ite ^Treatment This alternative is identical to Alternat-ive 3 with the exception that the leachate collected onsite voul^ be transported to an of fs i te treatment faci l i ty The PRP conn it tee requested an evaluation of this alternative based on their op in ion that onsite treatment and disshycharge to Hockanum Brock (Al t e rna t ive 3 would not be allowed under Connecticut ltTater Quality Starjarcs and that treatment at the Naugatuck or Beacon Falls FOTW would te more cost e f fec t ive
Under this alternative the perimeter leachate collection system would drain by gravi ty to a ho ld ing tank An estimated 5000 gallons per day ( G P D ) would i n i t i a l l y be removed - c f f site fcy two tank trucks per day and transported tc the nearest available wastewater treatment faci l i ty r icr to removal leachate would be pretreated onsite with an a l k a l i n e metal precipi tat ion process Preliminary scoping has shewn that the Naugatuck wastewater treatment facil i ty may be able to accept anj process this leachate load This fac i l i ty is about f cu r r i les fror the site The ini t ial capital cost of this a l te rna t ive is 515 216 000 with a total 30 year present worth cf Sie euro 1C 000
The Beacon Falls PCTv-r vas e l i r in ated fro- consideration for technical reasons orly conest ic wastes are presently treated at the f a c i l i t y aid the system is p r e sen t ly exper iencing problems due to inf iltrat ioninf lew
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Oshy
C1 |CD O
o
m
PC
|Oo
gt0 o
-wV- trade ^-- bull -
^^^H in ygt^ imdash i- bull ^-^ zg S5 -bull
I I I mdash 1 - 51 I cgt i $
it Ishy
ae r-1 rj^n
llpound^ d o
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
QUANTITY E3T MATES REMEDIAL ACTION ATERNATIVE 3 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
Remedial Ac o~ Estimated Quentir
bull Excavation Betkoski Dump 25000 CY Sewage Sludge and Soils 18000 CY
bull Leashate Collection System Perimeter Drain
Trench Excavation 16700 CY Synthetic Liner (50 nil) 157000 SF Gravel Backfill (Kgt1(T3 cisec 16700 CY 8 in perforated pipe 4500 LF Filter Fabric 7500 SY
bull Stormvvater Management Svsten Channel Excavation and Grading 11000 CY Berm Construction 10000 CY Site Revegetation __ 40 AC
bull Leachate Treatment System Package Treatment Plant 5000 GPD mdash
bull Multimedia Cap ~~ Gas Flow Zone
2 ft sand amp grave Kgt103 cmsec 106500 CY Impervious Zone
2 ft clay Klt10~7 cmsec 106500 CY 50 mil synthetic liner 1437500 SF Filter fabric 159700 SY
Infiltration Zone 1 ft sand amp gravel Kgt103 cmsec 53200 CY
Soil Zone Filter Fabric 159700 SY 1 ft topsoil 53200 CY
CYCulDic Yards SF Square Feet LF Linsal Feet SY Sqare Yard ACAcies K Permeability GPD Gallons Per Day cmsec Ce-timeters Per Second
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
r~ c 3
g (TUJ
K ltfgtQO
Si CL UJ lt CD O
lt -J KOQ
u_o
UJ CO COgloen o _
CD
gUJ
o
a
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
16
CERCLA Section 101 (24) cefires remedial action as inclushyding the use of offsite transport of hazardous substances only if it is necessary to protect public healti veifare and the environment creates additional disposal cacaci-y or is more cost effective than onsite remedies The first twe criteria are net satisfied by this alternative However tre present worth cost is ery close to that of Alternative 3 (r sie irearrert) Since the degree of source ccntrcl provided is identical to that provided by Alternative 3 a final decision en the leachate treatment aspect of Alternative 3 would be deferred to the design pnase of the project during which t ire additional data would be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate trea-rrert options within Alternative 3 A Decision Memorandum signed by -he Regional Adr in istrator would then be prepared to justify -he selected option
Alternative 3C RCRA Cap Leachate collection and treatment onsite with a temporary mobile system Postclosure nonitoring This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception that a temporary mobile treatment system from a corrjnercial vendor would be used instead cf building s permanent installation This unit will most likely consist cf an air stripper to remove volatile organics combined with carocn adsorption for removal of non-volatile organics The uni- would remain on-site until either leachate production drops to ncn-processable levels or leachate production does not drcp as expected at which point additional leachate handling techniques would be evaluated The primary advantage of this option is that_-a permanent on-site-^shyfacility need no be built if leachate production is only to~ continue for a fow short years anj in -he meantime a less costly treatment option can be pursued However this alternative has disadvantages in that corjnerc ially available mobile systems may not have all necessary unit processes ~c adequately process leachate to discharge standards It has been assumed for costing purposes that this treatment will continue for five years after completion of the source control remedy The total 30 year present worth cost of this alternative assuming that leachate collection and treatrent is needed for only 3 years is S164C9OCO Again costing data are included within Appendix C Taole C-3 If design or predesign work confirms that leachate procuciior ray drop to ron processable levels within a short tine and that a mobile unit can adequately treat the leachate this opticn is he -cst cost effective cf all the leachate treatrent options -hat provide adequate protection of public health welfare and the environment Based on this possibility if Alternative 3 is selected this option would be further investigated durinr the rlesig- phase of the project and a Decision Document would be prepared were this option to be selected over options 3 or 33
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 1 7 )
Alternative Number 4 Ons ite RCRA landfi l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to NPDES Standards This remedial a l te rna t ive involves the phased cons t ruc t ion of an cnsite l a n d f i l l mee t ing the technical requi rements cf R C R A and the placement of all contaminated material w i th in the rev l a n d f i l l The leachate fro- the new landfi l l (double lined bottom) would be treated to N F D E 3 s tandards and d i scharged to the t r i b u t a r y of Hockanur Brook This a l t e rna t ive includes a gas v e n t i n g system and f e n c i n g around the entire site The phased cons t ruc t ion process requires constructing sec t ions of the new l a n d f i l l whi le e x c a v a t i n g port ions of the old landf i l l The project would require extrerely high quality control dur ing construction to m a i n t a i n the integri ty of the bottom double lined layer since large earth moving equipment wil l be moving on top cf it Free l iqu ids found wi thi r the exist ing l a n d f i l l would also require s tabi l izat ion before disposal in the new landf i l l
This alternative satisfies all source control objectives for site remedia t ion and would provide a s l ight ly increased decree of protection oeyond thcit af forded by Alternative 3 since all leachate would be collected Nonetheless an c f f s i t e remedy would still be required to mit igate the groundwater contaminat ion which already ex ists
The implementab ity and therefore f e a s i b i l i t y of this altershynative is questionable Construction of this landfi l l would require s ign i f i can t quanti t ies of both f i l l and irpermeable cover and liner materials to be del ivered to the site and consequent ly may take 4 or irore years to implement In addi t ion the sit ing would have to take place partly on adjacent property since Beacon Heights Inc dees not own erough suitable land or which to build a new l andf i l l This woulc require purchasing -cr taking land by eminent domain to construct the new landf i l l and could also add to the es-imated time required for implementat ion Excluding the costs to purchase this addi t ional land the in i t i a l capital cost of th is alternative is S 3 8 2 4 C G O O wi th a 20 year total present worth ccst of $ 4 0 C M C 0 0 0
Irrplementation of this al ternative -ay also cause short term adverse impacts to huiran health and the environment which may net be totally controllable by the use of ritigative measures The excavation and re handl ing of sucn a huge mass of waste may result in releases to the air of both hazardous organic chemicals and methane from garbage decomposition in s u f f i c i e n t quanti t ies to pose a threat to the health of area residents The control of contaminated lead-ate and surface rur of f dur ing this operation particularly during stcrr events wculd be extremely d i f f i c u l t if hot irpcssiole wi th the resul t that bctr s u r f a c e waters and groundwater would be adversely a f f e c t e d
Thus on the basis cf high ccsts ard adverse envi ronmenta l iiroacts of the alterrat ive this a l t e r n a t i v e has been e l imina ted
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 1 6 )
Alternative Number 5 Onsi te RCRA L a n d f i l l Leachate Collection and Treatment to Dr ink ing Vater Qual i ty Standards This a l ternat ive is the sane as a l ternat ive number 4 except that the leachate wil l be t reated to a more s t r ingent d ischarge s tandard the dr ink i r g water qua l i ty standards rather than -he NPDIS s-ancads This option was e l iminated for the same reasons as rurber 4 above
Alternative Number 9 Publ ic Water Supply Provided to Extended Area This a l ternat ive includes e x t e n d i n g the mun ic ipa l water supply approximately 7 0 0 0 fee t along Skckcra t Road to uhe next towns ex is t ing water m a i n and extending the public water supply along Blackberry Hill Road approximately 5 2 0 j feet to the demographic l imits The limits of the water l ine ex tens ion are shown ir Figures 8 and 9 All present and potential human receptors along Skokorat Road and Blackberry Hill Road wil l be provided wi th an alternate water supply
The area of coverage for the water l ine was ini t ia l ly based on the hydrogeologic setting of the l a n d f i l l which was described earl ier The indeterminate nature cf local contaminant f low in anisotropic fractured bedrock mandates that coverage extend beyond both the present ly impacted area and the area of impact in fe r red from consideration of su r f ace topography to account for local disturbances in f low pat terns due to pumping of private wells or qu i rks in s t ra t ig raphy These - influences may cause contaminants to flow toward deep bedrock receptor wells upcradient of the l andf i l l Under this al ternative the water line would be extended to the l imits cf res ident ia l development on Blackberry Hill Road to encompass these more distar-t- potential receptor-s The next possible receptor is 3000 feet from the proposed limit of the waterl ine Homes in this area would require extremely deep veils to penetrate the bedrock fcrrtation that may carry grounciwater from the l a n d f i l l and such hoires =re far enough away to avoid inf luences of punpirg or other disturbances en local contaminant f low patterns The SVokorat Road waterl ine would be extended to the next town s service limits for the same reasons
This water l ine extension w i l l also require upgrading of a puniping station and installation cf individual tap-ins to all residences (approximately 5 4 ) Construct ion and engineer ing requirements needed to complete this alternative are very corjnon
Since none of the source control remedies will mitigate the exis t ing croundwater ccntar inat ion and =11 wi l l al low some leachate to enter the crcurdvater this a l t e rna t ive would serve as a supplement to a source control remedy to l i t igate and m i n i m i z e the r isk from ground-water c o n t a m i n a t i o n The in i t i a l capital cost of this a l ternat ive is S 1 9 5 6 C T C vi th a long term present worth cost of $2 458000 The quality of water from a municipal source is predictable and costs are reasonable for the extent degree and qual i ty cf r emed ia t i on ach i eved
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Ficure 6
J mdashmdashbullmdashmdash RECENT wrTE=USc EXTtNTON mdashOmdash LIMT c~EgtTpoundiDED AREi-iLsi~iVi 9) mdash mdashmdash LIMIT C ArFpoundCTpoundD AREA - ALTE=Ni-|VE 10 mdashmdash mdashmdash TOWN SOUSDARY USE
Renedial Action Alternatives S and 10
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
VJ D
- gt_ - _ ^shy^^r 1 izl ^ J-S i z~ ^bull
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 1 9 )
Alternative Number 10 Public Water Supply to A f f e c t e d Area Remedial action alternative number 10 addresses the area that has been shcwr to be impacted by contanina- ion above current acceptable s tandards The impacted area includes a sec t ion cf Skokorat Road approximately 2 000 feet long Tne l i~iz of this water l ine extension is shown en Figure 3 alcnc vith Al ternat ive 9 This a l - e r n a t i v e would require the ins ta l ia - ion cf tap- ins -o a f f e c t e d r e s idences (approximately 13) alone the prcpcsed extension The connection of a new public water supply to zhe a f f e c t e d residences along SVoVorat Road will elirinate exposure where site contaminants have already been i d e n t i f i e d in resident ial wells in excess of reccrurerded federal and scate guide l ines However nc mi t iga t ion or minimization of the public health threat to those current resshyidents andor fu tu re residents outside the propose service area would be provided Given the aforementioned hydrolcgic setting of the site these residents may be exposed to higher levels of contaminants in groundwater at some f u t u r e -ine Already residential wells outside tnis a f f e c t e d area have been shown to be coptam irated with trace levels of organic chemicals below current health advisory levels The total capital cost of this alternative is $370000 with a long term present worth cost of $370000 This a l - e rna t ive in con- unct ion wi th a source control a l t e rna t ive will eliminate exposure to residences along Skokorat Road only Due to the lack of cidequate protection provided to residents outside the proposed service l imins (Blackber ry aill Road and the top of Skokorat road) this a l ternat ive has been eliminated since it does not adequately mitigate or minimize the threat to public heal th rosed by off site migra t ion of con taminan t s fror the site
Alternative Nunber 13 Long Term Monitor ing wi th Ins t i tu t ional Controls This alternative assumes that due to the specific technical constraints posed by the site hydrcgec Icgy an e f f e c t i v e gro-ndwater extraction and treatment system cannot be implemented Approximately 10 to 15 varying depth groundwater monitoring wells will be installed adjacent to and cowngradient of the site to monitor the ef fec t iveness of the cap and to track any fur ther spread of crouncwater contamination Several of these wells wi l l be located belcw the junction of Skokcrat Road and Blackberry Hill Road to assess the potential for future grouncwatsr cortsmirart migration to this area which contains several s treets which lack municipal warer service and thus where private wells provide dr inking water supply yonitoring will be performed fcr a period cf 30 years or unt i l de-err-iree unnecessary by the Agency a f t e r -horough rev iew cf the data The lone term monitoring data to be provided from these wells may forr the basis for establishment of ACL s (Alternate Concentration L in i ^ s ) if needed to protect other g roundwa te r users beyond the current limits of groundwater contamina t ion emanat ing from the site
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(2C j
It is expected that after a source control remedy is implemented (cap) the groundwater certaininaticn will attenuate and dilute to insignificant levels Ir the urli-ely event that contamination in these monitoring wells dees not reduce after the cap is completed the Agency reserves the rich- tc perfcr- furtiier testing or studies on the extent of contar iriat ion in the bedrock aquifer
In order to ensure the Iznz -err protection of public health in the area surrounding the site strict institutional control over the extraction and use of crcurd-aier within the area of influence of the landfill can be carried cut uncer State institutional controls which are authorized by sections 2532 and 2533 of the Connecticut General Statutes For public supplies the Connecticut Department of Health Services (DDKS) must approve the well site prior to drilling Prior to use of the well(s) extensive testing is required and the data reviewed and approved by DOHS before use of the well is allowed For private water supplies no site approval is needed but a permit for use is required froir the local health department In addition -he Connecticut state building codes require new homes to connect to a municipal water supply if it is available within 20C feet from the residence
This alternative In anc of itself does not provide adequate mitigation of the public health threat posed by groundwater conshytamination emanating fron the site but may te a necessary adjunct to whatever source control enc offsite remedies are selected
The initial capital ccst of tnis al-feernct ive is S272COO with a 30 year total present worth ccst cf 3998000
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - --shy
The public comment period for the Beacon Heights landfill site began on May 20 1ltgt85 with a press relecise announcing the availability of the crat feasibility study 1or puolic ccmirent During the comment period a public meeting was held (June 5 1985) to present results of the RIFS and answer questions from the public concerning the cleanup alternatives On June 11 1985 a formal public hearing was held to record ccmnents on the cleanup alternatives for the Bej-cor Heights landfill The public comment period closed on June 14 1935
The overriding concern of itary resident was to be provided with a new water supply first cleanup later- Getting clean water to affected and potentially affected residents was priority number one for the residents themselves and local officials Alternative number 9 water supply to an extended area was the only water supply option that residents would accept The State of Connecticut agreed with the residents on this point
Another major concern expressed ry several citizens was that alternatives 2 4 and 5 onsite incineration and RCRA approved landfill with leachate collecticn and treatment to NPDES or drinking water standards could leac to other wastes fror other
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(21)
areas bei-g brought onsite for incineration or disposal Since no ether RCRA permitted landfi l ls are available in Connecticut the fear of other wastes being brought to the Beacon Heights l and f i l l ~as brought up In add i t i on a croup of potent ia l ly responsible parties the Connecticut DEP and others submitted ccr-jrer ts curing the public comment period These ccn~ents along w i t h tncse of the c i t i zens are addressee in the r asp ors iveness su-r=ry Further information on comunity re la t ions concerns can be found in the Beacon Heights respcns iveness su-rrary in appendix D of this document
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Environmental laws which may be applicable or relevant to the 3eacori Heights remedial action are as follows
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Clean Vlater Act - Safe Dr ink ing Water Act - Clean Air Act
Eased on written comments from EPAs Plannirg and Standards Section there are no wetlands on site and no potential wetland impacts as a result of remedial activit ies at -he site The Connecticut Historic Preservation of f i ce concludes that this project will have no e f f e c t on historical archi tectural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible fcr the National Register of Historic Places Flood Plain maps provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development do not listTthe site as lying wi th in a 100 year flood plain Gary King of the Connecticut office of Policy and Management the Designated Single cin- of Contact for intergovernmental review of f ede ra l f i nanc ia l ass istarce and direct federal development recortmenaed federal agency funding of this project and further concluded that funding is not inconsistent with the Connecticut Conservation and Development Pol ic ies Plan
The primary env ironrrental law of concern at the Beacon Heicnts site is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( R C R A ) 42 U S C sect 6901 et seq The proposed alternatives vere reviewed for consistency with applicable RCRA technical s tandards Closure and Post Closure Care and 40 CFR sect 264 Subpart F entitled Ground vater Protection The f i rs t area addressed is the capping fcllovel by the leachate collection and treatment anf lastly the a l ternate water supply and the groundwater r e m e d i a t i o n strategy The RCRA cap will be designed in accordance wi th 43 C F R sect 264310 (al tc achieve the following
1) rrcvioe long term min imiza t ion of migrat ion ot liquids through the closed l andf i l l
2) Funct ion wi th min imum maintenance
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 2 2 s
3) Promote drainage and rir Lnize errcsior or abrasion of the cover
4) Accorcodate sett l ing and subs ice nee so that the cover in tegr i ty is main ta ined
5) Have a permeabi l i ty less ohan or equal to the permeabi l i ty of the u n d e r l y i n g soils
The cap installation and inspect ior will be performed as spec i f ied in sect 264 303 The l a n d f i l l wi l l be surveyed and net ice wi l l be f i lec wi th the deed and g i v e n tc -he local land au thor i ty as specif ied in sect 264119 and sect 2 6 4 1 2 3 The applicable closure requirements in sect 264 Subpart G will ire addressed (Decontamination Disposal of Equipment C e r t i f i c a t i o n by Profess ional Engineer and Site Security will be provided as specif ied in sect 2 6 4 1 1 7 ( b ) ) Post Closure Care and croundwater moni tor ing wil l be performed in accordance wth 40 C F R sect 264 Subpar t s F and G and Subpar t N sect 264310 ( b )
If offs te leachate disposal is chosen as the most cost ef fecshytive remedial action for source control then leachate collection transportation and disposal wil l oe per formed in accordance with the appl icable RCRA regula t ions at 40 C F R sect 2 6 2 S-ancards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste and wi -h 40 C F R sect 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Haza rdous Waste Leachate collection wil l be in compliance w i t h 40 C F R Pari 2 6 2 3 4 A c c u m u l a t i o n of Hazardous Waste on-site for 90 days or less and wil l not require a RCRA permit Even if treatment occurs onsite a RCRA perm_it wil l not be required Of f s i t e f a c i l i t i e s use 5 for the treatment and disposal of the leachate will be cpprcved- fac i l i t ies which have a permit or inter im status and are in ccmpliance wi th the RCRA regulations Proper man i f e s t i ng of the wastes wi l l be conducted
The source control al ternat ives that sat isfy all applicable or relevant environmental laws (pr i r ar i ly RCRA) are a l ternat ives 1 2 3 3B 3C 4 and 5 Al te rna t ives 3A 6 7 and 8 do not provide adequate control of source mate r ia l as required by 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of the NC
Extension of a municipal wate-r supply tc area residents (Alternat ives 9 and 10) is consistent with the appropriate extent of reriedial action as de f ined in 40 C F R sect 30068 ( e ) ( 3 ) of the NCP Contamination has migrated beyond the area where the hazardous substances were or iginal ly located bull and the instal la t ion of an alternate water supply is necessary to provide long term protection ol public heal th and w e l f a r e by prevent ing incest ion of contaminated groundwater
Since existing data are adequate to conclude that the hydro-geologic sett ing of the l a n d f i l l precludes the ab i l i t y to e f fec t ive ly intercept and extract cort-STT inater crcu- dwater ne i ther a l ternat ive 11 or 12 is technically practicable In addi t ion since they provide l i t t le assurance of reducing off site c roundwater cortam inat icn they are not cost e f f e c t i v e in c o m p a r i s o n to the level of rerediat ion
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 2 3 )
they provide Under RCPA 40 C F R Part 2 6 4 Subpar- F Groundwater Protection contaminated groundwater leaving the waste management area rust be remediated to background levels to M C L s ( M a x i m u m Corcertrat ion Limits which are en fc rc ib l e ) or to A C L s (Alternate Concen t ra t ion L imi t s ) The long tern ncni tor ing d a t a to be provided by inple-nentat ion of a l ternat ive 13 ray forn the bas is for Jiuture es~ sol isnrrent of A C L s This ceterr ir 5t ion wi l l be ~aae by the Rerior a l Admin i s t r a to r in a f u t u r e Dec i s ion Document if necessary
R E Z O M K B D E D ALTERNATIVE
Section 30068 ( j ) of the Nat ional Contingency Plan ( N C P ) states that the appropriate ex ten t of remedy shall be determined by the lead agencys (in this case EPA) selection of the al ternative that is cost e f fec t ive ie the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and which effect ively ra iz igates and minimizes damage to ana provides adequate protection of pub l ic health we l fa re and the environment
In order to meet the stated objectives of site remediation bozh a source control remedy and an o f f s i t e remedy are necessary since nei ther can provide adequate protect ion of publ ic heal th we l f a r e and the environment without the other
Eased on the evaluat ion provided in the Feasibi l i ty Study Repcrc and after consideration of the comments expressed by the public local o f f i c i a l s potentially responsible part ies and the State of Connec t i cu t EPA has determined that the fo l lowing combination of source control and off site remedies meets the aforementioned NCP criteria
SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY
- Excavation of outlying contaminated soils including the Betkoski s Dump area leachate seep areas anc sludge d isposal areas
- Consolidation of this mater ia l vith the nain l a n d f i l l
- Capping of the landf i l l area in confcrnance with the technical requirements of RCR-
- Gas vent ing ( wi th air po l lu t ion controls if determined to to be necessary cur ing design phase
- Perimeter leachate collection system
- Treatment of collected leachate either onsite or o f f s i te (discussed later)
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(24)
- Enclosure of the site with security fencing
- Stormwater management controls
- Construction of a r_ore extensive grouncwater nonitoring network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap
OFFSITE REMEDY
Extension of municipal waterline to supply water to residents along Skokorat and Blackberry Hill Roads
- Long term monitoring of grouncwater contaminant migration
- State and local institutional controls on groundwater use in the impacted area
The source control remedy is Alternative 3 described in the Feasibility Study Report and in the Detailed Evaluation section of this document Source control Alternatives 1 (Offsite disposal) and 2 (Incineration) were eliminated curing the initial screening on the basis of cost eng ireer ing feasibility and potential adshyve^rse environmental effects Alterrat ives 3A (RCRA cap with no leuroachate collect iontreatment) 5 (Soil cap) 7 (Ko action) and 8 (Monitoring) were also eliminated during the initial screening since they vroulc not achieve adequate source control
The remaining source control alterra-t ives 3 and its _-_ options B and C ( RCRA cap leachate collect iontreatment post-closure monitoring) 4 (RCRA landfill leachate collection treatment to NPDES standards) and 5 (RCRA landfill leachate collectiontreatment tc crin-irg water standards) all provide adequate source control A comparison of the present worth costs for these alternatives clearly shows Alternative 3 to be cost effective since it is the lowest cost source control alternative that is technologically feasible and reliable and provides adequate control of source material As indicated previously a reconsideration of the cption for leachate treatment will be made during the design phase cf the project Further data gathering and analysis is needed to refine the costs for treatment onsite with a permanent irs plusmnalla t ion (Alternative 3 treatment onsite with a temporary installation (Alternative 30) or offsite treatment Alternative 3B) The present worth costs for 3 and 3B are virtually identical based on the level o analysis provided in the Feasibility Study (+50 -30) The refinement of stream discharge requirements tireframes for landfill dewatering offsite facility costs and requirements and onsite treatment capabilities during the design phase will
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 2 5 )
allow costs to be estimated to the +_ 10 level This will in turn v e r i f y or refute the existing analysis which shows that the onsite t reatment Al terna t ive 3 is the cost e f f e c t i v e a l ternat ive This design phase analysis will alsc p r o v i d e the data to determine if a temporary (Al ternat ive 3C) or a pe rmanen t (Al te rna t ive 3) installation is necessary A Decision Manor a near wil l be prepared for the s igna tu re of the Reg iona l Acr in i s t ra t or o cocu-ent the cost e f fec t iveness of the recor-mended op t ion This memorandum will also detail the extent cf excavat ion in tho=e areas to be consolicate3 with the main l a n d f i l l pr ior to capping
The recommended off site remedy is a combination cf Alternatives 9 and 13 described earlier O f f s i t e a l t e rna t ive 11 (Grouncwater extraction treatment) was el iminated dur ing the initial screening on the basis of engineering inf eas it il ity Al te rna t ives 12 (Addi t ional S tudy) 7 (No ac t ion) and pound ( M o n i t o r i n g ) were also screened out since they do not provide itininizetion or mitigation of the c f f s i t e migra t ion threat
The limited water l ina extension ( A l t e r n a t i v e 1C) was elimishynated dur ing the detailed evaluation because it would provide no protection to those residents beyond the extension 1 in its who are threatened by offsite groundwater ccntaninant nitration from the site Thus this al ternat ive does net meet the recu irerrents of 40 C F R sect 30068 ( h ) ( 2 ) of zhe NCP
The combination of m u n i c i p a l water supply extension to the present and inferred area cf iitpact 1 or_2 term grcurdvrater moni shytoring and state institutional controls over the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the area will provides min imiza t i on and mi t iga t ion of the threat pc sed by of f s ite content1 inat ion mdash
The estimated capital and present wcrth costs for the recommended alternatives are as follows
Capital cost $ 17 397 000
Present worth cost $ 19613000
(These costs are less than the additive costs cf Alternatives 3 S and 13 presented in the Feasibi l i ty Study and in this document because the well installation and moni to r ing costs cf Alternat ive 13 duplicate those included ir Alternatives 3 and 9j
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Opera t ion and ma in tenance costs (C ~ bull are those required to cperate and mainta in the remedial act ion throughout its l i fet ime This activity ensures the l i fe t ime e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the remedial a l ternat ive A present worth ana lys i s was cone on the O a yi costs for all remedial alternatives and is presented in appendix D his present vorth analysis represents
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(26)
expenditures that will occur in the future in terms of current dollar value Unless otherwise specified a 30 year project life was assumed for the O amp M analysis for all alternatives
The alternatives chosen for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site are alternatives ruirber 3 9 and 13 These alternatives implement technologies to control the source of contaminant releases and to mitigate offsite rt icrat icn A corpl 2te breakdown of project costs including both capital ari O amp K for the selected remedy is presented in figure 10
Under source control alternative 3 a RCRA cap will be placed over the entire landfill to reduce the cegree of leachate generation end migration Maintenance cf the source control alternative 3 will include lawnmowirg of -he grass cover overlying the cap repair of damage to the security fence reroval of obstructions from the stornwater maracertent and gas venting systems anc regrading as necessary Mcnitoring will include sampling anc analysis cf upgraciert anc dovncradient monitoring wells surfcice waters and collected leachate
Alternative number 3 also provides for the collection and treatment ol leachate The different options for treatment of the leachate provided the basis for development of alternatives 3B and 3C Since both these offshoots cf alternative 3 provide the same degree of source control as alternative 3 itself the final decision on the leachate treatment aspect of source control is being deferred to tre design hase cf this project During this time additional caca will be collected and analyzed and the cost effectiveness analysis refined to better compare the leachate treatment options A Decision Memorandum will thefPbe prepared to justify the selected cpticn shy
Annual 0 amp M costs for leachate treatment will include tabor for operation of the leachate collection systen and -naterials and labor for operation of the onsite treatment system If data gathered curing design shovs alternatives 23 or 3C are more cost effective than onsite treatmen- (alternative 3) O amp M costs will include transportation of the leachate to a licensed hazardous waste treatment facility or costs for rental of a temporary treatment system Again this decision will be documented in a Supplemental Decision Memorandum
Leachate collection and treatment will be considered part of the approved action (net an operation ard maintenance cost) and will be eligible for Trust Fund mcnies for a period of up to two years fron completion of the source control remedial action This action is considered part cf the scurce control remedy since it may be a temporary action and control of leachate production is considered to be a vital component of adequate scurce control
Vater balance calculations indicate that a RCRA cap over the entire landfill will drastically reduce the amount of infiltration allowed tc reach the waste material and will therefore reduce leachate generation However in the interim before the water level within the waste crcos cue tc the influence
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Figure 10
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE COST SUMMARY
Partial Action Alternative 3 - RCRA Cap Closure
INITIAL CAPITAL CCSTS Excavation of cdjacent vrastes - 43013 2- pound 1010010 bullulti-ae^ia Capping System (Induces Fer^e 511514070 Leachate Collection System pound 850030 laachate Treatment System S 263000 bull[ethane Venting System S 340030 Stcrrwarer Management System S 489030 bulloritoring Well Installation S 272030 bullJprreae Access Road S 540030 redesign Boring Program pound 161030
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE 2) s 15439300 Operation and Maintenance (OampM) Cost
Leachate Treatment System S 90030 Site Maintenance S 23030 Mo-itoring and Analysis (without reside-tial -wells) pound 69030
TOTAL OpoundM COSTS S 182030 Ppound5ENT VCRTH OampM COSTS _ S 1716300 TCTAi ALTERNATIVE 3 COST pound 17155300
arr^ial Action Alternative 9 - Extended Krterline
INITIAL CAPITAL ODSTS Alternate Drinking Water System pound 1844438 Monitoring Vfell Installation pound 113438
TOTAL INITIAL CAPITAL COST (ALTERNATIVE V pound 1958 COO
Oceration and Maintenance Cost Inspection and Maintenance pound 8750 Mor itor ing and Analysis pound 43 pound30
TOTAL OiM COSTS S 53000 Fpound=Err VCRTH OampM COSTS pound 500 coo TOTAL ALTEKvATIVE 9 COST pound 2 4 58 COO
TOTAL P3CCECT INITIAL CAPITAL COST pound 17397300 TOTAL OiM COST pound 235300 TOTAL PPESENT VDFTH OampM COST S 2216000
TOTAL PrOJECT COST S 19613000
Nc^e Alternative 13 costs not induced fcec=use costs (well irstallaticn and ncritcrlng duplicate those induced in AJ-ern=tives 3 =nc 9 above
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
mdash o +shy2 reg laquo
SE o bull Q
O O O
inin
c c c CO c-
o o o o
-o 33 gt
O C c c c c oT c w
o
mdash o c ra
sect8O)
o o o (O
c o c
co CO
o o o o o o ^r CM o o O Lfgt
CM
c c c c r bullshye laquor CC IT
ishy laquoshy
C c
c o pound
c 09
S~ = a O Q)
J2 g
bull2O
_ LJ C73
bullmdash o laquo o o o o CM CO
o o o CM O
pound2shyo o c o o o C LTshyO f-n CM
C C c c c c C tfi cc rv CO CM
ac(Cbulla5arr=2C
u o o bull laquoJ deg shy o~ o t 3 g laquoshy deg deg-Q
= ra a a
0)VI 3 0gt bullH fa
- P Ziiz z lt)
03 2
O lt j C3
S
mdash Q O
c 73 a 5 o^ bull laquo c at
o o o 03 CO
tf)
o-bullltu
laquoagt
T5
a tc o
-g
CM CO
o S mdash tJ Olt3 rshys
C
mdash mdash
f Ic cc i0-5lt cc =O cC C
o o o (2
CM
Mpound^ CB shy O deg^
$ C _ bull
pound poundshy
l| c to c ishy eg lt e o Oro = mdash
c o o (O
CM
oa sect
O Jmdashbull^
ex esO
O
- V
O
gtmdash ^
LT5
V) o gt Nshy 03
a plusmnr a
sect ll ^ O a ishy c ra o c
=shy -a o 0 ga O o (^ O f^ CO bull mdash lt^
^ Oa shy^ o c o mdash ^ o bullmdash ltg ltM laquo^ ^_
d amp a o o raquo- c c
c 5 S oO ~- ~ w
laquo oo ltshybullshy pound3
S pc3
s i o flsecti2 CO O
V)
V)
o shyH if O o
co 03
TO C 0)
c o
o shy O O laquo o deg 5^2 g- mdash mdash oc3 c o ^
C 5 pound P
bullshy CN
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
( 2 7 shy
of the cap leachate will continue to be produced During this period the leachate production must be controlled In the two years following completion of ens ire construction the flowrate of leachate and the water level within the fill material will be monitored to see if a steady state has teen reached After the two years a decision will be made ~c either continue collection and treatment of leachate as ar cperaticn and raintenance activity or to terminate ons ite treitrert and pursue ether treatment nethods due to very low levels of production These actions will be documented in a Decision yerorancur
STATE ROLE
The states role in tnis fe deral lead site is mult iple The state reviews documents to deter mine if they are in compliance w i ~ h applicable state laws and provides comirerts or all EPA funded studies at the site The state cf Connec t icu t as represented by the Connecticut Department cf Envi ronmenta l Protection ( D E P ) concurs with EPAs chosen reinecy for the cleanup of the Beacon Heights site located in Beacon Falls Connecticut The state
ll p rov ide 10 percent of the in i t i a l capi ta l costs of the chosen remedy and will assume re sponsibility for all 0 amp M costs fol lowing completion of cnsi te construction act ivi t ies
SCHEDULE
- Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD) - September 20 198gt - Complete Enforcement Negotiations - November 20 1985
Phase I - Alternate Water Supply Water Main Extension
- Award Superfund Contract for Design - November 21 1985
Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - Kay I 1986 Complete Construction - September 1 1986
II - Source Control Cap and Leachate Co-ilection
Send Interagency Agreement ( IA3) to - November 21 1985 the Army Core of Engineers for E-esign Start Design - January 1 1986 Start Construction - October 1 1986 Ccmolete Construction - f-arch 1 1988
Pertd irg availability of furds
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
(28)
FUTURE ACTIONS
Some additional field irvest igat ior work will te necessay during the design phase cf this project to delineate the exact extent of coverage of the FCA cap en the landfill cine the areal extent and depth of the satellite areas (Betkoskis Dump sludge disposal area and leachate =sgt=p areas to be excavated and consolidated on the main lancfill Requirements for handling these contaminated areas tc r_e = t RCEA requirements en free liquids content must also be de terr ire t This contingency has beer addressed within the cost sensitivity analysis in the Feasibility Study Costing data included in Figure 1C anc Appendix C assume highest cost and hence largest cap and largest excavation expected
Future actions include nonitorinc the caps effectiveness as well as assuring the future effectiveness of the selected remedy through operation and maintenance Monitoring for cap effectiveness is required unier cst Closure Care aid Grcurdvater Monitoring as defined in acccrcance vitr 40 CFR Fart 254 Subparts F and G and Subpart N sect 264210(b)
An additional possible future action may be a re-evaluation of offsite groundwater ccnta-ination Contingent on nonitoring results for the cap effectiveness anl groundwater tracking a decision to revisit the feasibility of croundwater extraction and treatment may be made by the Regional Acministrator This decision may include additional remedial actions plusmn0 ensure adequate protection of public health welfare or the envircnrent
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
APPENDIX A - SITE LOGVTIOW
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Is^B
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
FIGURE A-5 BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL PLAN OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE r-2 REGIONAL MAP-BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLS CONNECTICUT
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
APPE^IX B - SITE CCNTAMINSNIS
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Figure -^-
bull Berzere - SO ag1 poundXChlorobraquonzene - 110 ug1
mdash ~-mdash~mdashmdashmdash Kw-ii- ~~^~~~^^=^poundamp-^ Benzene - 480 ug1 Chlorobenzene - 340 E-enzere - EDO ug1 Chloroethane - 34 ug1 Chlcrcbenzene - 320 ug1
Chlcroethane - 34 ug1 Kethylene Chloride - 280 ug1 Bis C2-chloroethyl) Ether- IOC0
Eenzene - 850 ug1 -Chlorobsnzene - 740 ug1 Chloroethdne - 69 ug1 Pethvlene Chloride - 50 ug1 Bis(2 - Chloroethyl) poundther - 4200 ug1
____ ARE FROM THE MAY 1984 SAVSgtLpound RESULTS WH3CH WERE GENERALLY THE HIGHER VALUES
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CORPORATOR SCALE f=400 A Halliburton Company
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
IXBL-DW-029
lHo1r Residence Benene - 131 ug1
^Ketliylene Chloride t^
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE I =400 CXDRPORATOTsJ A Halliburton Company
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Figure $-3
8L-SD-III
L-SW-OOI L CBL-SO-OOI
BL-SW-002 8L-SO-CO2
BL-SW-OOG BL-SD-006
BL-SW-105 [Septemberj E-eriere - 49 ug1 Chlcrcoerzltraquone - 95 ug1
f Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether - 420 ug1 iron - 89000 ug1
^MI^^XIK ^iriliv^xiK^rt^-^-
(Hay 16 ug1
xraquoLeiene - 18 ug1 2-Butanoni - 36 ug1 Benzole Alt1d - 222 ug1 Sis (2-Chlorethyl) Ether - 232 ug1 Iron - 3140 ug1Manganese - 360 ug1
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
CXDR^ORATOM SCALE l=400 A Hallitxjrton Company
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Sp^ltcsra
- LE-o o ^^-^^^J^te rVBL- LL- E -CO7A^^lt MMm
BL-SO-OI C^ ^ BL-SO-OI1
-- BL-SO-OIJ x BL-SO-OI
BL-SO-OI5
BL-SO-017 I NL-SO-OIB Xx^
BL-SO-019
LEACHA1ESCHLSAMPL1N 3
BL-LE-OOI BL-LE-002 BL-SO-301 BL-SOshyBL-SO-003 BL-SO-D04 BL-SO-005 BL-SO-OO5 BL-SO-O07 BL-SO-OC8
LEACHATESOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BEACON HEIGHTS LANDFILL SITE BEACON FALLSCT
SCALE l=4OO A Halliburton Company
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
_ _
Irl 1Mdegdeg 5lt Hi _0
pound raquo 2 c pound O o o ^ r ^
Q C gt- ~ ar c
JI _C
o ^=
0
9 deg gt in bull^~ Eu pound e= v r mdash pound o S c I li bull- 2 ~
(R
c 5 deg5^ 5 ^ 3
si IP mdashmdash ^ sect
c 5 Sshy 1Cc u = C laquo
O Q 2 mdashpound = e mdash ~ tf) pound degpound - u o c C O o c bull= ^ e c e ^ raquo c u
S pound 0 1 1E e o mdash t
mdash bullno bullS bull= = dege 5 I deg
^S 2 c -j
UJ c o bullJ
to=2 S c c - l S 1a -0)
H i SJ3 I pound c 39 a bullmdash g(C C3 C ^ c z u ^ C c2 2~r
iO If | gtf^ 1 1 i 1
O O c C_j laquoj= |-H 0 C cj c1 t3 Imdash l- 1 h- fshybull= C
C T mdash = sect pound sect ^ lt
e ^ G lt=gt ~i~Z ltn bull pound mdash O pound ol
bullsect deg c mdashbull O
o liSMy i
o e mdash 5111 III raquon gt- ~
i C = z pound 2 e zamp
mdash laquo ~ vS lt
C O UJ U x y
to
il
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
o c o
5 = ~ i i~ o~ shy ci
O O O c lt
o = c_o en ~
111
c 3 2 c H ^ = o Is
c deg = S C5 mdash
I 0
mdash ^ r e co pound
-c g = = mdash UJ C
O pound ^-
O gt = Q UJ ^
00 mdashmdash
pound5 Sshy00 = bullo -o c111
CD
C O ^ = t- o
C c
I c e r^ I I
i
C cj
O
O O
o-J
o o
9 2i lt CO
og
Ipoundlt
ii I 2
^
I
^ 5 = =
^sll infoco
pound5 HJ
5S 58 ^5 mdash5
o
mdash o
Ii
- 2 i O
1
Oo =
rshy shy
0 Obull in Si
oO 5Si 5
- ei So
^ O gtbullmdash m ~f ltn
Z ^
es Oe O ltOIL 5
TT C
^ ltmdash CJ
1 lt rshy U
1 gtbull 10
gt o
2 egt52 SJSlt o
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
II 5 sil shy2 z
o laquogt J3
1H i o g
u o o|a bullc
bullo _
laquo ~ = o 5 I I
1 ec mdash
|
I CQ
a) c e J e
(0
bullo S e
pound = shyo ^ - s|S Cl O11IN is oipound ^ x n bull 5 3
Se S- c mdash c mdash gtIfil e c laquo= pound E
c S^ = c o ltM t5 C J mdash mdashI
c | i=ocI l sect pound l bullo
o v fgtuj bull 5 sect pound E pound = pound 2_0
laquo-5 c i -sectg IE 12 sectbull i ca 2 Z ~ shyII O^
= r
3 - lt lt - 7 ~-z ~ C - e c cmdashc
2 gt c ^ i o C UJ S Z S bull i I I IU K S ^ 3 3 Z J J J j t 1 _
t e O 5 2Bi 2 I S2S J iHS5
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
bull i w 2 x
-oca o a = 3 o u mdash e bulla x J1bullc bullraquo
Z c Z c 5 iiff I c c111 mdash IM bull- O 1 deg = f 5 O 41 C
c c K 5lt e pound ^ mdash s deg -C w 1- ^ s -3 o o laquo i mdash ^
c Z3251 1 Z 3 1 S 1
ibdquo z bullo laquo w e e c
bullpound c c1 5- laquo
M laquo 7 w ^
1 2 e bull0^2 1 laquo 1 3 O TJ sc 5 ishymdash o j|| III 3 -0 01 Z3 bull shy
bull0 ^ O5 |l 0 ^ -lt if ifi K -5
laquo O ei Hi laquobull H IfO e i trade it laquo ^1^ bull S 7 i ^ bull ^1 r i 33 2 5 G | S
gt sis 55pound
lt ciK M 3i bull1 c s f laquo c bullc JQ 1 bull shysisw ^ is ^i (U CD - bull- s IE 1 2-1
c c 5 S ~ C gtgt s 1^-1 bullS t X bull bull
C ltCD pound xjc 2-5 v c e -mdash ^T -bull= 3 0 55 deg| deg1 S 1 III it
bullgt)bullgt] o c slli I ci c e c S c i
1 ltlaquo jn a mdash bull bull laquo + 2 6 l 7t57 4shy
ltD vnuce r- 43 S-P (C
e r= e laquo ec III iis e
raquo
pound15 Z _ CLn
3 e O degBI 0 S laquogt 3 1 C3 deg
c _c c c laquooT c j t
gti 5 21
laquo ||l c1 bullbull bull j
^ X3
E bullo 9C 1 J -i u S
mdashV trade P laquot C trade C ~w ^ 3 ogt Z
e laquo |l i1 1
bull
HMc laquo pound bull ilaquo
fllil
non
rp
ot
c o bull5
U llilll |l 1 z laquo
S5 LI
III- raquo
laquo ^gt ^ 2 5 Af Ol o c s^l
bull pound 3 pound J 2-5 s e bull e 7 20 c bull w 5 bullpound S-5 - 5 cc
o s s 5 laquo 5 S
lt1 _ gt5 0
ne
no
llHV
)10
0-41
-4
li ^ T If ltx
Ifr li c o
t=lt S c x oc 6bullraquo 2 S Z1 tsect = Iff bulllaquo
O is O u C ltj pound lt u
ill CI bullpound vraquo il i clt
e u u C3 CL V
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
C o
ISain
+ raquo + bull+bull +i i i i i +I
o mdash CMI
I I I I I
CM oin to mdash
t
CO mdash
CM CM mdash mdash CO CM
in cs ITIf C 111i io to
o mdashi
CM CMi ii i i i
a it bull shya to i mdash n
I I
O CO cc
o w mdash - C M mdash l o o c o
mdash mdash~o mdashmdash ca mdash mdashmdash o o
ltn O 35
ic to i i mdashi cs shy mdash CM en to mdash
CO I OBI mdash 13 mdash
CO bullbull ia o ltN I IO I
ec C
i t i O laquo CD
ltC 00
1 CM
2 z pound CO e ____laquoC3
bullbull bull^ S mdash to v ^ CM CM
CM
MlaquodBS lu D Q ZgSO to
It 2 pound2 1~ T ^ - D13 W shy3 C) shyi
Q
bull c I o
o o CM
CM
1
1C
0 n Obull i o
1
f^ o ino tO CM CM CM
1 mdash 1 |
US
c c 1 CC 1
CM
1 1C
M 0 C mdash O O
^1 O
rgt es CM
__ 1 1
CM O
O O CO O O - 1
o
to CO
O o v
1
0 CO C
I
0)bullH Xlta EH
II bull O C5 U
II
1 g n -
mdash i i i i i i i i i o i i i i i i CM CM
I I
5 CO
O
I
bull9 _ mdash
laquo
OO O z
e e o o
a c
= o laquo I2 e bullbull
o
2 mdash o =
pound o o o o -So e c 2 g
S Q-
sect o g
e o
II
S cgt- c x e 5 I o T
T laquo0
O i lt i i i i i wlt o
i i i i i mdash sr--- i r gt w
wolaquo-ao=gtc O T O s 3 3 c ci i bull
CO0 0
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
CO 0 oshy
^^rlaquo-rgt mdash 10 i i i i i i mdash mdash ^ co mdash CM i eo i
O3
Vola
tile
Org
11
1-trl
chlo
root
l1
1-dl
chlo
root
hoi
fluor
otrlc
hlor
oml
0)iH e o i i o o nO CM Ogt O0 O CO ilt0 I I EH
en
c eraquogt e c ce _o bull pound bull o c c _ laquo lt5s cIs m laquo 2 5 P bulls s-s
Con
tam
lni
bonz
ono
chlo
robo
nzon
e1
2-dl
chlo
roet
hai
chlo
root
hane
et
hylb
onze
nem
othy
lone
chl
orl
12-
lrnn8
-ltJlc
hloi
tolu
one
trlch
luio
otlio
nov
ngt-
co
rrfs
ac
oton
e2-
buta
none
(M
EI4-
mot
hyl-2
-pon
e c 0 gtbull bull9 To
tnl
xyle
nes
2-ho
xono
ne
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
o o
_o
o wjo S
a
o
a 0 osi laquo
bullbull bullo c w ^ u X
33 1 o laquoa i i 5 l
CM
03 e
i i ^c a o mdash a u u o
S 5 JO
5 ~ 5 laquo - E sectc laquo o _ o r ja c2 c mdash 1 S 11 1 1 I
J i s o S C 2 pound o o pound o = | 5 |= 5 I 5 I 2 a
- S 1 laquo i I I 1 IO laquoa s ~ w
laquo c E J- o o -s cS w mdash -e = ~raquo fcc bullgt cshy- mdash laquo E g laquo c T30 g
deg 1s i iS laquogt o
pound = o gt =
_c -a 5 o
l||
3 t| a
laquol Z deg C o
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
bull bull
r) n
ISS|oltvj5 = Ou
W
5pglpoundlO in S
f t2 w
3fc n lol Q) 5 PS
TT Ul Z
X |c8ujgiEH C
bull fi58poundbull
sect55 PI
bullbull bull ltf o O(
bull ~ J
deg i 2bullc ^ g3 10 =in bull=
rT
5f
c a c E m c O U
6 Z en5 c
o 0
^- I I I C) 1 U9 I I I I I l it 11 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III I
in1 r s bull shy
o oo
or pi laquo V ~-deg ex sect rC laquo cshy
1 1 1 ~ mdash 1 I 1 1 SS35S3S gS5SS22 bull
SHS S H 0 pgt
ltMO n n o lto laquogt(bull i i i i i i i i i i i i i
^ poundpound mdash -lto e ~ lto o T bullshy1 ^ raquo O O ai i t i i i iM laquogt 1 IO 1 1 II III 1 1 1 IB
S EEE laquo6 0sectshylaquo obull e
1 (M 1 O 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 h bull-
ltltltltltltltlaquo ltltltltltltlt lt lt lt lt lt lt lt z z z z z z z z z zz z zzzz zz z z z z
2bull
w laquo bull bull 5 bullJ bull bull bull bull i bull
laquo O V O laquo mdashpound | s 2 bull E 1i pound ||| J||| III I1 gAif|f l|||-s gtgtbullHliifilslilt11111 f3 C0 0 g B bull O bull e bull bull Bbull a r s -ssi^ c c bull laquo bull raquo bull bull ^ c mdash bull - - 5r ~ ~ trade = c c = C e ~ c o laquo pound r pound poundbull -laquo 3e--3iplusmn bull o bull ec u c 0 3 ^ gt-= 1 poundpoundgt -C C pound J bull= -02 = a a u laquo laquoC = =-i a ltM
CM o c e f rgt u- o olaquo- T mdash vraquoraquorltirr a o mdashta r ^ mdash ~ deg t ^ i lto i r^i i f||gSS|Sliliiis o o r c o o c e e e o e a o e o e = = pound= = 0
^bull - rsn in iaecc
w O u
i e
M E C c
c bull 2pound e laquoshy0 pound
sl o mdash g C bull
illshybull mdash deg a g|oshy
lll llflll 31 ~ |1 s - J
deg|||2
|i||| pound C mdash deg O
laquojiif|j-jpoundbull3 S ~e deg o c gt laquo = S 2
-||l|||
laquolt CSCJ 3Z
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
ltgt a
pound
CMrv
I a Q
CM
mdash O o r5 o O CM C O N CM bullshy CO u o
CM I I CX IO T
T 0 bullV CD
O U
- cv
C c cv rlaquo cJ rgt = 53
I I I I in
SI ii
i 8s a
n) ZZ ZZ ZZ Z ell2 o 5 o -a c
= o sect 5SS gS ltN o mdash
o o c ce o bulla laquo c o C Q-
-IIIMlc Ioill C
O
a c 2 e oN laquo laquobulle pound E
bullE 5 bull= laquo deg deg 2 shyS | laquo x ^ Jj
6 ^
2o
laquoQ O
bull gt _ o c D O pound m
Ee V)
bull9 ^
T e
s 2 lt
lt M i n oi e o
1 0lt o
o mai o
i c a ii n c
iC O 1 es c
o a
bull e2 flaquo
i v 1 Ct c c
c c c
bull 1 2 o1 5 5
e o
S
1
O
laquo -B E _0 O =
~ c
lll-iibull 5 r -c
mdash ltN n ^r
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
APPENDIX C - REMEDIAL ALTESIATIVE COST DATA
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
O O
O o o o
O O
o o o o o c c o c c
o o c
o o o o o c c c c
If)CM
IT)O
rococo o shy rgtshy CM
o IT)o CO
C3
C3m=bull
O r-gt CO
O cc Lrt
co co
bullcto
fx imdash obull^r o o o o o
O o o o o o o o o o CO O5
in obulllt o
o CM
co O O
o o o o o o O cs o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o
pound
O CO 03 in co
rrenco en rv ^r
agtr laquomdash co C5 oCDITS o O in
co CO
c to CM
O o CM CM CM CM CM CM
o o o o o
sectH g
W
co o3 pound O a
CO
o o lt0
ooOo
o o O o
o o CM o
2 mdash 1ft
colaquoshy
co laquoshy
laquoshy CM
i o o iH
b o o o
ooo o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
-O
oC3
o G3
O
o oo
XI
sLJ sect IS o 0gt
o o o
in in CM oo
CO co CM o o
COto CM
o o
IT)O3
o o
o CO
CO ID
CO Lf)
CO
CSJ
oS o en oCM
o raquoshy
o laquoshy CO
CD c
CO CO CD CM laquoshy CM
c o E
C o o o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o bullo
o o o
ooo o o o
o o o ltD
eo c
Q CO o
Ol
C)ci rshy in
at CO
in
obullcCM
CO CO
c laquoc CM
CO CO
in rgtlaquo laquoshy
co
CM
CM
CO o CO
bull^IT5
rx cj) laquomdash
CM r^ CM c
0)
to ~
II03 o C bull o gt O to a o
rshy CM (O CO O laquoshy CM 00
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
1
Offsite disposal
2
Onsite incineration (RCRA)
3
RCRA Capleachate collect and treat to NPDES standards
4
Onsite RCRA landfillleachate collect and treat to NPDES Standards
Beacon Heights Landfill
Offsite disposal of all contaminated material in a RCRA approved landfill (700000 cubic yards)
Incineration of all contaminated material in four portableincinerators Return of ash to a on-site RCRA landfill
Construction of a 30 acre multi-media cap including gas venting and storrawater controls Also installation of leachate collection and treatment system
Placement of all contaminated material in an on-site RCRA approved double lined landfill with leachate collection and treatment
Caoital
100459000
51201OOC
15439~OOC
38240000
COSTING
OampM Total
9000 100493000
4751000 64055000
182000 17155-tfOO
254000 17333300 (with monitoring)
191000 40040000
annual operations and maintenance cost (excluding well monitoring costs)
total present worth cost including 0 amp H costs (30 year)
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Table C-2
LTEBNATIVES COMPONENTS COSTING
Cacital 0 amp K Ibtal
5
Onsite RCRA landfill
Placement of all contaminated material
3- 246000 191000 40046000
Leachate cclect in an on-site RCR and treat to Drinking Water Standards
approved double Lined landfill with leachate collection and treabrsent
6
Soil Cover Leachate Collecticn and treatment to
feet of soil cover 6 inches of topscil placed over entire site Leachate collection
5175000 223000 8277000
NPDES Stand-irds system and treatment to NPDES dischargestandards
7
No Action Strict no action 0
8
Limited lo with Lc-nc Monitoring
Sampling analyses and review of grouncvater surface water and other media samples for a 30 year period
272000 180000 1969000
9
Public vater Supply to an Extended Are2
Extend Water Vain up Skokorat Road to next municipal supply up Blackberry Kill Boad to demographic limits (54 total homes)
I 195000 I 53000 2458000
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
Table C-2
ALTERNATIVE
10
Public Water Supply to Affected Area
11
Grounwater Extraction and Treatment to Drinking Water Standards
2
Additional Groundwater Hydrogeolog ic Investigation
13
Limited No-Action with Long Term Monitoring
COMPONENTS COSTING
O amp M Total
Partial Water Line extension up Skokorat Road (18 heroes)
3-0000 53000 870000
Installation of 70 extraction wells in bedrock pump and treat water for a 30 year period
1544000 216000 3580000
Gather additional data on nature and extent of contaminant migration in the bedrock recommend effective groundwater treatment schemes
197000
Establish a network of monitoring wells to track the groundwatercontamination If it poses s threat to public health welfare or tie environment in the future additional actions will be taken
272000 -77000 998000
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
f
s bull
O c O O O O C O o o o bull o a c o o O O G O C
2 ogt IT)
CO C CO C5 fraquo C- in C5 laquomdash o CT rv c 1C ID co o r-v bulllaquo cpound2 fe Q LO c _c_
5
o o o o o c c o o O O CO C o o o o o o c bullt ogt
to rv bullc CM CO laquo- raquo- C co o o o is rgt laquo ^
IS CO CO Lf) O IT t- c os raquo o o o
CO CM Eo al laquo-o
2 S gtbullT deg JQ z V5 5 t sect
CO c o shyO ^~ o 5 secto o o o O O oa o o o o o c c o T3 - CT o o o o c o c g
ltN o in O kft CM C5 o rgtlaquo to r^ 2co CM CO CM
deg-ltDa- =05
O lt E ffl 2 a lt- ogt -sect laquoo o gt o o 0 O CD o o O - o O7 ^ o o mdashmdashmdash O o O
bullS3 rU lt Q at O) iO ltD CO CO S z plusmni Q O CO C - - tmdash mdash CO r CO CM CM CM
in J LO LO to oilaquo
O -j 2OHO oO 5 ltO
O 00 o CO
n bull raquo vraquo5 alls g
- c 9shyo
gc 3o
oO
oatm
o
bull ^
laquo-gt c + O Ej=o
2poundlaquo^ Q olaquo-gt cu o bull CD COx o aE _l o OI 0)u O L-- 9lto oCO o^ vgt
5C o a M5 Olaquo^ 3 3 CO^E- o c^O 05^ bulle apound ^~ + bullmdash - w^ pound^ 73 mdash u mdash o s
o c3 laquo ^mdash mdashc XI Mmdash ^^ u^m
~ ^O c c3 ^ oCO C 22 5 gt gt gt G gt a ^ gt05 gt Q_ o ^_ a Q in Q mdash 2 mdash C i_ r
2MQCO TT 03CO
_ ^ 0|A o
+ 2 o c Q- E l_ 0 CO co 0ta C_J 1__ pound_)
0 T3c o lt u
3 C3 3gtbulloIf 1 ltcc CC cc 5 O o o o O
S-a 5^ a o c 2 cc c i2
CO -T-T3 0gt
CD IE = 3 M
21 lt CO CO o tS o o 2 CO _ O 5S jS c c cc _o ^ 5
^ 2 c a alt 0 O O 0
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
1 i-
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SCMMARZ
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX E - ENFORCEJ-CErr ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325
APPENDIX F - CCXiNECnCUT COST SHARE LETTER
- barcode 9325
- barcodetext SEMS Doc ID 9325