PIPER & MARBURYCHARLES CENTER SOUTH

36 SOUTH CHARLES STREETBALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21301-3010

WASHINGTON^0-539-2530 NEW YORK

FAXKIIO-S39-04S9 PHILADELPHIA

LONDONEASTON, MO

July 23, 1993

Debra Rossi (3HW42)Remedial Project ManagerU.S. E.P.A., Region III841 Chestnut BuildingPhjladelphia, Pa. 19107

Terri White (3EA21)Community Relations CoordinatorU.S. E.P.A., Region III8'Jl Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, Pa. 19107

Re: Woodlawn Landfill -- Comments on RI/FS,Proposed Remedial Action Plan________

Dear Ms. Rossi and Ms. White:

On behalf of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. ("AirProducts") and The BOC Group, Inc. ("BOC"), we are submittingthese Comments and Attached Exhibits on the Woodlawn LandfillRemedial Investigation (and Baseline Risk Assessment) datedOctober 1992 ("RI"), the Woodlawn Landfill Feasibility Studydated April 1993 ("FS"), and the Proposed Remedial Action Plandated May 26, 1993 to be included in the Record of Decision forthe Woodlawn Landfill Superfund Site ("Site"). Air Productsand BOC wish to make clear that they are submitting theseComments and Attached Exhibits as members of the generalpublic. Submission of these Comments and Attached Exhibits byA.ir Products and BOC should not be considered to be anadmission or indication that either or both is a potentiallyresponsible party for any contamination at the Site that

AR000035

Debra Rossi PIPER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 2

requires response not inconsistent with the NationalContingency Plan ("NCP"). These Comments and Attached Exhibitsare submitted within the period designated for receiving publiccomments as established during the public meeting held June 8,1993.

We note that U.S. E.P.A., Region III ("Region III")has indicated its preference for alternative 5 as described inthe FS (alternative 4 as described in the Proposed RemedialAction Plan). This alternative describes capping approximately30 to 31 acres of the former municipal landfill to exceed theminimum requirements of regulations found at COMAR 26.04.07,pumping and treating groundwater, and discharging the treatedgroundwater to a nearby stream. FS, pp. 3-5 through 3-6, 3-8through 3-9, 7-9 through 7-21;- / Proposed Remedial Action Plan,p. 13, 18.

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

The FS identifies COMAR 26.04.07.19E(6), .19E(7), .21and .22 (collectively, "landfill regulations"), relating tosanitary landfills, as applicable state requirements. FS,Appendix A, Table A-4, pp. 1 and 2. These landfill regulationswere identified as applicable by the state of Maryland. RI,Appendix R, State Comments, p. 5.—'' ^/ Capping the entire

i/ References to the body of the Feasibility Study arein the format "FS, p. __-" Otherwise, references are made tothe Appendix, Table (if any) and page number (if any) in theformat FS, Appendix __, Table __, p. __.

^•/ References to the body of the Remedial Investigationare in the format "RI, p. __." Otherwise, references are madeto the Appendix, Table (if any) and page number (if any) in theformat RI, Appendix __, Table __, p. __.

3-/ Because hazardous waste as defined at 40 C.F.R.part 61 has not been found at the Site, 40 C.F.R. § 264.310(a)(requiring installation of a multilayer landfill cap) wasdeemed by Region III not an ARAR for the Site. AdministrativeRecord, AR307437.

AR000036

Debra Rossi PIPER & MARBURYTerri White^July 23, 1993Page 3

Site—' was considered necessary only because Marylandidentified the landfill regulations as applicable. FS, p.2-4. The FS states that there are no significant risksassociated with the surface soils of the landfill, thatleachability of the contaminant of primary concern (as measuredat the cell of defined PVC sludge) is low,5' and that landfillcapping will not prevent the lateral migration or reduce thevolume of contaminants which are in the groundwater. See,e.g. . FS, pp. ES-14, 1-48 through 1-49, 2-4 through 2-6, 5-2,5-4, 5-6, 7-11 through 7-12, 8-10 and 8-11 See also RI, pp.6-44 through 6-45, 6-50 through 6-51 and 6-75. As stated inthe Proposed Remedial Action Plan, "[t]he Risk Assessmentindicates that there are no unacceptable human health risksrelated to exposure to site soils, landfill leachate seeps,seep sediments, or water and sediments in the stream thatcrosses the southern end of the site." Proposed RemedialAction Plan,..p. 6.

Requirements under the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") may beeither "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate" to asite-specific remedial action, but not both. 53 Fed. Reg.

4/ The Site has been divided into seven remedial actionunits: groundwater/perched water/leachate; the contents of the30 -' 31 acres associated with municipal landfilling operations("the landfill"); Cell C (where PVC sludge from the FirestonePlastics Co. plant was disposed); saprolite; unnamed creek;landfill gas; and the septic field associated with the TransferStation currently operated by Cecil County ("the TransferStation"). FS, pp. 2-1 through 2-3. The surface soils of thelandfill were not identified as a separate remedial action unitbecause they do not pose significant health or environmentalrisks. FS,'pp. 2-3 through 2-4.

$•/ The RI determined that the health-based risksassociated with exposure to groundwater contaminated withleachate from the landfill area (excluding the cell of definedPVC sludge, Cell C) were significantly below levels ofconcern. RI, p. 6-45.

flROQ0037

Debra Rossi PIPER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 4

51,435 (December 21, 1988).- An "applicable" requirement isone for which there is little discretion, if any, in itsapplication to a particular remediation. 53 Fed. Reg. 51,436 -37 (December 21, 1988). Meeting the conditions andrequirements associated with a variance or exemption provisionof an applicable provision is a means of complying with thatrequirement. 55 Fed, Reg. 8,741 (March 8, 1990). Where staterequirements form the basis for a proposed ARAR, they must havebeen "promulgated" (i.e., be legally enforceable and of generalapplicability). 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(2)(A)(ii); 40 C.F.R.§ 300.400(g)(4). State standards are "generally applicable"only if they are applicable to all circumstances covered by therequirements, and are not applied in a discriminatory fashionto Superfund sites. 55 Fed. Reg. 8,746 (March 8, 1990); 53Fed. Reg. 51,438 (December 21, 1988); CERCLA Compliance withOther Laws Manual, part II, p. 7-3 (Aug. 1989).

The state landfill regulation, COMAR 26.04.07.19E, istitled "Minimum Operating Procedures" and is located in theregulatory section governing landfill operations. COMAR26.04.07.19E(6) controls the grading and drainage of operatingdisposal sites. COMAR 26.04.07.19E(7) requires that a landfill"be operated to prevent air, land, water pollution, publichealth hazards, or nuisances." Because the municipal landfillis not being operated and in fact is closed., see Exhibit iL_,Affidavit of Barry G. Belford, these sections cannot apply tothe landfill remedial action unit because they are not legallyenforceable or generally applicable to the Site. Thus, it isimproper to designate these regulations as "applicable."

Likewise, the current landfill closure regulations donot apply to this site. COMAR 26.04.07.21, relating to theclosure of sanitary landfills, states that

[a] landfill whose design capacity has beenexhausted or which has been ordered by theDepartment [of Environment] to ceaseaccepting wastes and to initiate closureactivities after the effective date of this

^ The preamble of the proposed NCP reflects EPA'sintent in promulgating the NCP unless it is directlycontradicted or superseded by the final rule or its preamble.55 Fed. Reg. 8,666 (March 8, 1990).

AR000038

Debra Rossi PIPER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 5

regulation shall close the landfill inaccordance with the provisions of thisregulation.

COMAR 26.04.07.21A (emphasis added). Because Woodlawn reached ,design capacity, entered into a consent order, and conductedclosure activities ten years before the effective date of thisregulation, COMAR 26.04.07.21 simply does not apply.

In 1978, the design capacity of the Woodlawn landfillwas exhausted and the Maryland Department of Health and MentalHygiene—/ ordered the landfill finally closed. ProposedRemedial Action Plan, p. 2; "Woodlawn Landfill Superfund Site— Fact Sheet", June '1993; Exhibit 2, "Preliminary Assessmentand Site Evaluation Woodlawn Transfer Station" (Excerpts). Aspart of its closure activities and pursuant to then-existingguidelines, Cecil County installed two feet of cover over thelandfill, installed a positive drainage system and stabilizedthe Site (which included vegetative cover). These closureactivities were completed under the supervision of officialsfrom MDHMH. Exhibit 1,- Affidavit of Barry G. Belford. OnFebruary 8, 1988, the then-applicable solid waste managementregulations were repealed and the current solid wastemanagement regulations were adopted, effective March 7, 1988.15 Md. Reg. 618 (February 26, 1988). Thus, ten years beforethe effective date of the landfill regulations, the WoodlawnMunicipal Landfill had reached its design capacity, beenordered closed and had initiated closure activities. Becausethese events had occurred before the effective date of COMAR26.04.07.21, this regulation is not "applicable."

COMAR 26.04.07.22 sets out post-closure monitoringand maintenance requirements for permittees. Like COMAR26.04.07.21, this regulation can only apply to permittedlandfills which have reached their design capacity or beenordered closed after March 7, 1988.

None of the landfill regulations are applicable tothe Site because by their terms none of the landfill

3-S The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene("MDHMH") was the agency that oversaw environmental complianceprior to the creation of the Maryland Department of Environment("MDE") in 1987.

AR000039

Debra Rossi PIPER & MARBURYTerri White.July 23, 1993Page 6

regulations are legally enforceable by MDE at the Site. If MDEhas a policy that the landfill regulations are to be applied tothe Site, despite the clear terms of the regulations, solelybecause the landfill is a Superfund site, then the regulationsare applied in a manner that is not "generally applicable."Such discriminatory application is in contravention to federalregulation and Congressional mandate.*-'

While it is true as a general proposition that arequirement could be "relevant and appropriate" even though therequirement is not "applicable," 55 Fed. Reg. 8,741 (March 8,1990); 53 Fed. Rea. 51,436 (December 21, 1988), this is notsuch an instance.*•' A requirement must be both relevant to asite and appropriate, if it is not applicable, to be an ARAR.55 Fed. Reg. 8,742 (March 8, 1990); 53 Fed. Reg. 51,436(December 21, 1988). Whether a requirement is appropriaterequires focus on the nature of the substances, thecharacteristics of the site, the circumstances of the releaseand the proposed remedial action. 53 Fed. Reg. 51,436(December 21, 1988). To be appropriate, the requirement mustbe well-suited to the site. Id.

-/ For the reasons given above, even if the landfillregulations are legally applicable, inconsistent application bythe State of these regulations renders them subject to thewaiver provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(1)(ii) (C) (5) . Thelandfill regulations are unjustified and unreasonablerequirements imposed by the State as an ARAR solely because theSite is a Superfund site. The State does not apply theseregulations consistently to municipal landfills closed beforethe effective date of the 1988 regulations. Those that are notSuperfund sites are not forced by MDE to be re-closed pursuantto the 1988 landfill regulations. Where a standard isotherwise applicable but is inconsistently applied, it issubject to waiver by Region III as an ARAR. 40 C.F.R.§ 300.430(f)(5); see generally 53 Fed. Reg. 51,440 (December21, 1988) ("Inconsistent Application of State Requirements").

%-/ No agency or person identified the landfillregulations as relevant and appropriate, and the FS does notaddress them as such. It is not proper for Region III toconsider the landfill regulations as relevant and appropriatewithout formal identification and analysis as such. 42 U.S.C.§ 9621(d)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 300.400(g).

flROOOfHO

Debra Rossi , PIPER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 7

There is no health- or risk-based reason to considerthe landfill regulations "appropriate" to the Site. TheIdentification and Technology Screening section of the FSstates that even though no significant health or environmentalrisks exist in the surface soils of the landfill, capping isidentified as the appropriate technology simply because it isrequired by state law:

The surface soils of the landfill aboveareas of waste placement do not posesignificant health or environmental risks.The total child cancer risk was estimatedto be lxlO~6. However, because municipallandfills must be properly closed per staterequirements, the surface soils will becapped as part of the remedial action forthe landfill.

FS, p. 2-4 (citation omitted). The baseline risk assessmentmakes clear that surface soils above the areas of wasteplacement at the landfill remedial action unit pose noappreciable risk to human health or the environment. RI, pp.•6-44 through 6-45, 6-50 through 6-51 and 6-75; FS, pp. 1-48through 1-49, 2-4 through 2-6. Risks associated with exposureto groundwater contaminated with leachate from the landfillarea are significantly below levels of concern. RI, p. 6-45.Even the leachability tests of defined PVC sludge shows thatthe leaching of vinyl chloride, the contaminant of primaryconcern, into the groundwater is unlikely. FS, p. 5-2, 5-6,7-11 through 7-12 and 8-10. Because the FS itself states thatcompliance with the landfill regulations has no effect onreducing risks associated with the areas of waste placement atthe landfill remedial action unit, there is no justificationfor treating the state landfill regulations as ARARs.

Requiring the placement of a two foot clay cap overan area comprising 30 to 31 acres — 50% of which is denselycovered with trees, FS, p. 1-3 — which poses no significantrisk to human health or the environment from surface soils orfrom leaching is not appropriate. U.S. E.P.A. has stated thatlandfill capping regulations may be relevant but notappropriate. Such a requirement may be inappropriate

because of the physical size and characterof the contamination at the CERCLA site.

5ROQOOI*!

Debra Rossi PlPER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 8

Although capping may be appropriate forsmaller areas, it may not be appropriate insome circumstances for large dispersedareas of low-level soil contamination, suchas mav be found at many large municipallandfill facilities.

53 Fed. Reg. 51,437 (December 21, 1988) (emphasis added). geealso CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual (Draft Guidance).part I, p. 1-68 (August 8, 1988). Given the physical size ofthe Site and character of the contamination, reference to thelandfill regulations is not appropriate in this case.

In light of the improper designation of the landfillregulations as ARARs (due to the fact that they are neitherapplicable nor appropriate), the FS improperly failed toconsider alternatives that did not include capping the entireSite. A proper feasibility study that is not inconsistent withthe , NCP must analyze alternatives that include; 1) selectivecapping of the cell with definable PVC sludge and the TransferStation combined with a pump and treat remedy, 2) selectivecapping of the cell with definable PVC sludge combined with apump and treat remedy, 3) selective capping of the TransferStation with a pump and treat remedy, and 4) a pump and treatremedy without any capping. Until such alternatives areanalyzed for feasibility and consistency with the NCP, the FSand any remedy selected pursuant to the FS is inconsistent withthe NCP.

WETLANDS DELINEATION

A wetlands delineation conducted in September 1992was made at the Site using the 1989 "Federal Manual forIdentifying and Delineation Jurisdictional Wetlands" ("1989Manual"). RI, p. 6-60. Use of the 1989 Manual was improperwithout confirming the Jurisdictional status under the 1987Wetland Delineation Manual ("1987 Manual"). Pursuant to 105Stat. 510 (August 17, 1991), Congress prohibited the Army Corpsof Engineers ("Corps") (which has primary authority todelineate wetlands) from delineating wetlands using the 1989Wetlands Manual. Instead, Congress required the Corps to usethe 1987 Manual. Maryland's Department of Natural Resources(which is the state agency with authority to delineate wetlandson behalf of the Corps pursuant to Maryland General Permit

flROOOOl*2

Debra Rossi PIPER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 9

MDGP-1) uses the 1987 Manual to delineate wetlands. TheMemorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Corps publishedat 56 Fed. Reg. 4,995 (January 19, 1993) states that it hasbeen EPA's practice in judicial enforcement actions to confirmthe Jurisdictional status of property under the 1987 Manual andthat until a final wetlands manual is adopted, EPA will use the1987 Manual. Accordingly, use of the 1989 Manual to delineatewetlands was improper without confirming the Jurisdictionalstatus under the 1987 Manual.

CLEAN-UP STANDARDS

The proposed and listed remedial clean-up standardsfor groundwater at the Site should not be used because thesestandards are unachievable, unreasonably strict and arbitrary.The proposed clean-up standards for groundwater at the Site areunachievable _because these standards are more strict thanbackground constituent concentration levels in Cecil County.Consequently, even if the Site were never in existence, theseproposed groundwater clean-up standards would never be achieved.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Region Ill's proposedclean-up standards for those groundwater constituents for whichthere are Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs") are more strictthan U.S. E.P.A.'s primary drinking water standards formunicipal public water suppliers. Proposal of these overlystrict groundwater clean-up standards is not consistent withARARs, which include U.S. E.P.A.'s primary drinking waterstandards. Requiring cleanup to meet these proposedgroundwater clean-up standards for the Site is ill advised andpatently unfair when Region Ill's proposed clean-up standardsfor groundwater at the Site are not consistent with groundwaterclean-up standards for groundwater at other Superfund sites.Specific examples of four sites where there are arsenicclean-up standards (goals) for groundwater and, their RODs arelisted here. In all cases, the clean-up standard (goal) forarsenic in groundwater is 50 ug/L ("ppb"):

Auburn Road Landfill EPA/ROD/R01-89/042Vineland Chemical Co. EPA/ROD/R02-89/084AVTEX Fibers, Inc. Site EPA/ROD/R03-88/055Lawrence Todtz Farm Site EPA/ROD/R07-89/022

In the case of treptachlor, the proposed standard istwenty-five times more strict than the federal drinking water

flROOOOl*3

Debra Rossi PIPER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 10

standard. We question the need for excessively stringent andconservative groundwater clean-up standards (goals) proposed byRegion III for the Woodlawn Landfill when less stringent U.S.E.P.A. groundwater standards (goals) are the norm for otherSuperfund sites.

The argument that more strict groundwater clean-upstandards is appropriate for the Woodlawn Landfill because ofperceived synergistic interactions of constituents ingroundwater at the Site is totally without firm factualfoundation and without evidence that human health is adverselyimpacted by exposure to multi-constituents in groundwaterregardless of their concentrations. The use of PracticalQuantitation Limits ("PQLs"), Method Detection Limits ("MDLs"),or Instrument Detection Limits ("IDLs") for groundwaterclean-up standards at the Site is arbitrary and appears to be.Region Ill's attempt to define a clean-up standard for whichthere is no technical justification. Such groundwater clean-upstandards for the Site, which represent forty-five percent•(45%) of the groundwater constituents of concern, should bedeleted entirely.

Region Ill's proposed groundwater clean-up standardfor manganese is inappropriate for a metal constituent whichhas a U.S. E.P.A. secondary drinking water standard that isbased solely on aesthetic aspects. Indeed, Region III haslisted no justification for proposing this groundwater clean-upstandard in Table 3 of its Proposed Remedial Action Plan. Therecommended groundwater clean-up standard for manganese of 200ppb should be deleted.

Region Ill's proposed groundwater clean-up standardsfor alpha BHC, endosulfan I and vanadium are inappropriatebecause they are based upon health risk based theoreticalcalculations which are not based upon actual human riskexperience. All Region III health risk based groundwaterclean-up standards for the Woodlawn Landfill which are basedupon animal health risks and not human health risks suffer fromthe same defect. These clean-up standards should be deleted.

Region Ill's groundwater clean-up standards for polyaromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo(a)anthracene,benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(i)fluoranthane and chrysene aremuch too conservative. They do not take into considerationthat humans who broil and consume broiled meats and breathe in

Debra Rossi PIPER &. MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 11

diesel fumes may be ingesting more aromatic hydrocarbons thanthey ingest by drinking groundwater that exists at the WoodlawnLandfill. The proposed groundwater clean-up standards for polyaromatic hydrocarbons at the Woodlawn Landfill need to bereconsidered.

Groundwater clean-up standards at the Site should belimited strictly to primary drinking water standards whichapply to hundreds of millions of humans in the United States.

As an alternative, Region III should decline tospecify quantitative clean-up standards for the WoodlawnLandfill at this time. Instead, Region III could state in itsRecord of Decision that the objective of the final remedy is toreduce the organic compound and heavy metal concentrations ingroundwater leaving the Site by setting a design target basedon a one in ten thousand to a one in a million increased cancerrisk, to background values or to meet standards determined byRegion III. This recommendation allows flexibility inestablishing and negotiating future groundwater target levelsfor requiring a treatment plant (especially if current orfuture groundwater quality measurements show that the PVC cellsare no longer impacting groundwater at the Site adversely),establishing when treatment can be stopped, determining whenSite closure can be effected, and avoids possible protractedlitigation on the ultra-conservative clean-up standardscurrently proposed.

PROPOSED REMEDY

The proposed remedy is not appropriate for the' Siteand does not consider the future operation and maintenancecosts for pumping and treating extracted groundwater from thesite for eternity. If the proposed groundwater clean-upstandards are adopted, treatment of groundwater from the Sitewill continue indefinitely because the proposed groundwaterclean-up standards are more strict than background levels foundin groundwater in Cecil County.

The present worth for the proposed remedial actionPlan is grossly underestimated because it assumes thatremediation will take only six (6) years to implement.Historically, final closure of site remediation for a site ascomplicated as the Woodlawn Landfill has not been achieved insuch a short period of time.

ARGUU045

Debra Rossi p,pER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 12

Based on the scope and role of response action at theWoodlawn Landfill as announced in the Proposed Remedial ActionPlan for this Site, Region III did not consider a sufficientnumber of alternatives which use multi-remedial methods; Forexample, the alternatives evaluated in the FS and the ProposedRemedial Action Plan did not address isolation of those fewareas on the Woodlawn Landfill Site which showed an elevatedconcentration of groundwater constituents. Isolation of theselocalized areas would contain groundwater at the Site, reducethe amount of groundwater to be treated by reducing thequantity of groundwater migrating laterally on the Site,prevent migration ,of groundwater from the PVC sludge disposalcells and former Transfer Station septic system and preventgroundwater from migrating off-site. Properly locatedimpermeable bentonite slurry walls would contain groundwater onthe Site. Extraction trenches or well points within thetrenches or a line of extraction wells located up-gradient ofbentonite slurry walls could serve as groundwater collectionsystems.

The capping alternative portion of the recommendedremedy would prevent exposure to site soils with chemicalconstituents. However, the baseline risk assessment indicatesthat there are no unacceptable human health risks related tosite soils, landfill leachate seeps, seep sediments, or waterand sediments in the stream that crosses the southern end ofthe site. Capping does not prevent lateral migration ofgroundwater through the Site and soil washing by naturalrainfall will enhance the flow of groundwater to sitecollection systems which will gather groundwater for treatment.

The RI report does not appear to indicate that thereis a problem of landfill gas at the Site. Additionally, acapping remedy is not necessary to capture landfill gas fromany municipal garbage landfill. A simple vacuum extractionsystem would suffice. Capping such a large area as proposed isunnecessary.

A more detailed study of the depth of the refractivebedrock surface for the Gneissic Granite bedrock needs to bedone to determine the depth of over^-burden to be removed ifslurry walls were used to contain groundwater from isolatedareas on the site as well as on the down-gradient northeasternand southeastern areas of the Site.

Debra Rossi ' P|PER & MARBURYTerri WhiteJuly 23, 1993Page 13

Because the thirty-eight acre Woodlawn Landfill Siteis'covered with roughly fifty percent heavy woods, site cappingwhich is projected to cover roughly eighty-two percent (82%) ofthe Site means a significant number of trees and sitevegetation would be destroyed if a cap were installed as partof the proposed remedy. An environmental impact statement hasnot been prepared to evaluate this portion of the remedy shouldmixed funding be required to pay for the capital monies neededas well as the extended operational and maintenance costsassociated with the proposed site remedy.

In summary, the proposed remedy is not appropriatefor the enunciated scope and role for a responsive action atthe Site where the Site's condition and human exposure risksare concerned. Region III should reopen the RI/FS studies ofthe Woodlawn Landfill and postpone preparing a Record ofDecision for the Woodlawn Landfill until a proper RI/FS that isnot inconsistent with .the National Contingency Plan has beenprepared.

Sincerely,

Deborah E. Jennings

William W. Toole

cc: Peter Ludzia, U.S. E.P.A. Region IIIPatricia Hilsinger, Esq., U.S. E.P.A. Region III

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit.

1 Affidavit of Barry G. Belford

2 Preliminary Assessment and Site EvaluationWoodlawn Transfer Station," prepared by WasteManagement Administration, Maryland Office ofEnvironmental Programs (no date) (Excerpts)

1082.2057828:7/22/9321699-1

flROOOQ^S

AROCOOl*9

AFFIDAVIT

I, Barry G. Belford, solemnly affirm under penalty of

perjury as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to speak

as to the matters contained within this Affidavit.

2. I am and have been at all times relevant to the

matters contained within this Affidavit Director of the

Department of Public Works for Cecil County. As Director of

the Department of Public Works, I have authority to act on

behalf of Cecil County with regard to and have knowledge of

certain activities occurring at certain landfills owned by

Cecil County, including the Woodlawn Landfill.

3. On or about June 1978, Cecil County closed the

Woodlawn Landfill because the design capacity of the landfill

had been exhausted.

4. Shortly thereafter, Cecil County initiated

closure activities at the Woodlawn Landfill pursuant to the

then-existing guidelines for landfill closure published by the

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("MDHMH"), the

predecessor to the Maryland Department of Environment ("MDE").

These closure activities included placement of a two foot cover

over the final lift which provided positive drainage for the

site. The site was then stabilized (which included vegetating

the site). These final closure activities were completed under

the supervision of officials from MDMHM.

—1—1081.Z05782B:07/21/9321699-1

AR000050

5. After the Site was stabilized, industrial waste

from the Firestone Plastics Co. was placed in Cells B/C. These

cells were separately permitted and located apart from the

municipal waste landfill area at which closure activities took

place.

I have nothing further to add.

Barry Gv BelfordT IS*'*. \*9±

dated:

STATE OF MARYLAND )) SS:

COUNTY OF CECIL )

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this fc day of July,

1993, BARRY G. BELFORD personally appeared before me and made

an oath in due form of law that the matters and facts set forth

in the above Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his

knowledge, information and belief.

Notary Public

My Commission Expires: ry// j^^

-2-1081.2057828:07/21/9321699-1

AR00005!

>••'•A' 8 ' *

COON i/

Preliminary Assessmentand

Site Evaluation

Woodlawn TransferStation

Prepared by: Waste Management AdministrationMaryland Office of Environmental Programs

AROOG053H

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Introduction

Woodlawn landfill is located on Flretower Road in CecilCounty, Maryland. The site was originally used as.-a sand and >gravel quarry before it was purchased by Cecil County in 1965-

Personal interviews with local residents indicate thatthe dump was originally open on a 24 hour basis with no super-vision. It is unclear how long this condition existed, butState Health Department inspections go back as far as January,1'973. At that time-, the fill was still poorly operated thoughthe site was secured when closed and a full time operator waspresent during regular business hours. The landfill was finallyclosed and converted to a transfer station in 1978.

The only documented waste disposal 6n-aite consisted of PVCsludge from Firestcne Plastics which was located in Perryville,Maryland. Prior to 1978, PVC sludge was dumped indiscriminatelyaround the fill. Starting in 1978, waste PVC sludge was buriedin two clay lined pits under oermit from the State. Thesepits were closed and capped in early 1981.

Demographics

Woodlawn landfill is located in a mixed rural/residentialarea in northwestern Cecil County which has been the site offairly raoid development over the cast ten years. At thistime there are only ei.-ht homes within ^ mile of the sitethough there is a new subdivision planned along the landfill'snorthern border. There are approximately 10CO residents livingwithin a ariie radius of the site.

Critical Environments

There is a small unnamed tributary along the southern"border of the landfill. This tributary enters Basin Run approx-imately two miles downstream. Basin Run la a State designatedtrout stream which empties into Octoraro Creek Just aboveits confluence with the Suscuehanna River. The SusquehannaRiver is the ma^or fresh water source for the Chesaoeake Bay.

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITEIDENTIFICATION AND •KEUMNAIT ASSESSMENT

JITl NUMflCM ft* »» t*F M«

NOT!i TkU <MBI U tmmpltnt Mr Mak p*t«uul MnrtMa VMM stt* t* IMIB MC prtwmM (•» UM laaoaetio*. Tto* mtf to

CIMIItU. INSTXUCTTOMfc Cia>lit« tudiM t Mtf m *ni+ Z •• ••••liatr •• •»««ibl« )M<ar« SMttMt a i••••••••iv FUs> (klB tarn to tk« Ks0»««l HsaMrisvs VVMB MS; FU* ••rttmMut • e*vr to: U.S. riiiiiini>a««iiA«*a«n «*• Tmlilat II«»«M; OM« a«i •••«• CaftMmMM Task •*«•• (flf'iSSk 441 H St, SW: WMknsxaa. DC 20460.

L «Tt IOCMT1P1CATIOMA. SITC NAMB

Landfill Firetower Road., CJTT

WoodlawnD.STATK

\ro.r. COUNTY

i. OVMKJt/OPCItATOM Ctf1. Cecil County Dept of Public Works

N. TYPC Or OWNBMMIP

Cl. roiftM. O*, »r»Tt Ofc COUNTY £34, mmtor-Ai Qs, **IVAT« Q«. UNK

°**ew"TWMfroodlawn was used as an open dump for approximately 20 years,The site was closed in 1978 and is now used as a transfer station.

j. NOW iQCNTtmn rh*»,Contaminated monitoring wells discovered during routine <»•••«•»*»»>

sampling July 1981.

K. OATC lownneo

Julv 1981.CONTACT

i. M«M« I a.John Chlada Art ing a»oHoTia.1 CKit>-f OTTP_______________1 C3m

luiiouiNus of MMOM { IMiaiHtt C-S-tOW Q*. MOM* Q». UMKMOM

~~ «. NO ACTIOM MCKBIO n» * > * IMMCBIATK ST* iNmenoN MCCOIO—. ... „_

C. »«t. MAMK ' I «. T«U«^M»N« MUMaCH I i. 0*T« flMn «T. * TT.)

Arthur E. O'Connell_____________{ (301) 383-6650 I 6/11/82OL SIT! INFORMATION

A. StTC STATUS

•. IS OCHKItATOH ON »TCT21. NO

c. AMA or STC CM «•»!< i a. i' *»*»H«HT SKMIOUSNCSS or STC is MMM. sp«c:rr COO»OIN*T«• I I. UATtTUM f«««. •<•. »•«.< | t. bOH«ITUOC f*t«. •!•

pproxiaiately 37 acres jC. AMI TM«*C •UU.OIMOS OM TNC «TW

4R000055

iv. ounAcrimrATioH OP im ACTTVITT

1. flAlb

4. TAMM.ASMW*

S. TANK. MbOT «IMUN«

A e.T*cATtit

S. IMCtHBJIATMM

ra«ATM«MTTHCATMKMT

•. MUVCMT H««««Cirr

o. OISMStN

H. LAMerkMM

k IWCIMBNATtOMr. U«««II«II«UMO IIUKCTIVM1. •TMOt flMMMK

«-»««rTorrA«aorjiT«AcnviT.OA«i»B«8«o Uged aa a o?0n duffl? fcr atcut twenty years,the site was closed in 197?. During its unregulated ericd. of operaticrthe site was used by a number of unknown industries. The only permitteedisposal consisted of PVC sludfe from Firestone Plastics, Perryvilie, Me

IMKNOW Qitiooto QS.SOUO Q^SUUNNIS. •ArrtClUNACTtJarriCS —— »(2'- WHOM** Q*. coNMoav* Qs. IOWTAOU Q«> HAWOACT»V« • gjs, MOMUT votATikX23*. rone QT. MCACTIVC Qs> iMOt¥ Qs. rt_MSWAiut

C. «A«T« CATKOOjHO

•.SkUOOK

unicnown

21i«t» PAINT.~

ISIMSTTAk*

?VC wistecontaininVCM. ir. lowconcentra-tion.

won.

llio<t.rItASTCS

•. MbVCNTfl

unknown

• '"SsJLffisy™*IUIHOU MAKom

jistOAwmosBenzeneTolueneEthyl benzeMethanol- 19CC

Methylenechloride

XylenesChlorome-

thane1,1,1-DichoiocethaneCHCloFl.l.I-Trl-chloroet.har

CCNCMWAkJ

unknown

MMMCTAU*

•. sakies

••M.T4. itASTU

. M«^i»H»»l»U«

r. OTNKW

2 ill UA«0«ATO«T—— ill—— Ill

(4l«MJ«iei»AI.

tf* *•*. TW7** <10W») mat Z Of

~AR00ti056"

L IMOICATK AUk ArXJCAOC* PK»0»T» MKkfl IT THK »TK.

~] LSTATC

Q A. AIM r««MIT« C «• « CAI. »WMIT O •* *«•Ofcdeiw

No oermit was ever issuedmJi. rta

vm. *4rr RIOULATOCT ACTIONS~1 A.M««c rap1978 County ordered to close landfill. Jan. 12, 1979, order issued fcrdisposal of ?VC waste, count ordered to a cly- for DKS Tsernit.Dec. 1C, 1981, Cecil County Public Works and Pirestcne Plastics orderedto conduct groundwater survey.

^A.MOMC QB •.TOfOMO»M»ttSO»I U.«j4

or

Grcundwater survey

«.OAT« 0»•AST ACTION 4.0OSOIMPT10N

&XbSnsive ongoing survey iric_ua.itdomestic wells, streams, and theinstallation of,, an adaitlcnal sixmonitorinc wells around the t>eri-meter 01 tne sue., rn-s wu.i crcvide the-state with total of 21 w

X. RHtn(Ak ACnvtTT cs«st or

("I S. YW «••••••• (MIBI* *.t J. » 4

a.OAT«0»

tho iifliiBartra is Tinlnm Iff Oooack X, Oil oot tte PtoiisBascy AMowsiom (Smcaea H)

Ills