1111

SDMS Document

11111111111111111 11111 109456

Third Five-Year Review Report

Batavia LandfIll Superfund Site

Genesee County Town of Batavia, New York

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

New York, New York

September 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms Used in this Document.. ............ ; .......................................................................... i Executive Summary ., ....................................................... : ................................ : ............. : ... ii. Five-Year Review Summary Form .................................................. : .................................. iii

FlVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT I. . Introduction ....................... ·......................................................... '............ 1 II. Site Chronology .... ; ................................................... : ............ : ........... ~ ...........•........ 1 III. Background ............................................................................................................ 1

Site location ..................... : ........... ; ..................................................... , ..... 1 Physical Characteristics .................................................. : ............................. 2 Site Geology/Hydrogeology ........................................................................ ;.; 2

. Land and Resource Use .............................................................. ; .................. 3 History of Contammation .............................................................................. 3 Initial Response ............................................................................................ 3 Basis for Taking Action ................................................................................ 4

IV. Remedial Actions ........ ; ............................................................................ ; .............. 4 Remedy Selections .................................. ; ..................................................... 4 Remedy Implementation ....................................... :; ...................................... 6 Institutional Contro Is Implementation ......................................................... : ... 7 Operation,Maintenance and Monitoring ......................................... , ............... 7

V. Progress Since Last Five-Year Review ........................................ :.; ................ ; .......... 8 VI. Five-Year Review Process ....................................................................................... 8

Administrative Components .......... : ..................................... ; ......................... 9 Community Involvement ............................ :, ................................... : .............. 9 'Document Review ...................................................................... ; ......................... 9 Data Review ........................................................ : ............................................. 9 Site Inspection ......................................................... : ............................ ; .... : ....... 12 Interviews ................ ~ ............................... ; ................................................... 13 InStitutional Controls Verification .......................................................... : ........... 13 Other Comments on Operation, maintenance and Monitoring ............................. 13

VII. Technical Assessment ................... : ................................................................................. 14

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, deanup levels, and

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

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 14

remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? ................. 15

the protectiveness of the remedy? ...................................................................... 15 Technical.Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 15

VIII. Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions ............................................ 16-IX. Protectiveness Statement ................................................................................... 16 X. Next Review ............ ~ ............................. : ........................................................ 16

Figure 1:

Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6. Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10:

FIGURE .

Site Location Map

TABLES

Chronology of Site Events Annual Monitoring Costs Documents Reviewed for Five-Year Review Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Upper Zone Groundwater Monitoring Results - Volatile Organic Compounds Upper Zone Groundwater MonitoringResults - Inorganics (Metals) Lower Zone Groundwater Monitoring Results - Volatile Organic Compounds Lower Zone Groundwater Monitoring Results - Inorganics (Metals) Bedrock Groundwater Monitoring Results:'" Inorganics (Metals) Wetland Surface Water Monitoring Results '

A.cronyms Used in this Document

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

ESD Explanation of Significant Differences

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

HI Hazard Index

mg/kg milligrams,per kilogram

MCL ( Maximum Contaminant Level

NPL National Priorities List

NYSDEC New York State DepartII].ent of Environmental Conservation

O&M operation and maintenance

PRP potentially responsible party

RD Remedial Design

RIfFS Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility Study

ROD Record ofDecision

RPM Remedial Project Manager

/lg/l micrograms per liter ..

VOC volatile organic compound

WQSGV NYSDEC Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values

Executive Summary

. This is the third five-year review for the Batavia Landfill Superfund site, located in the Town of Batavia, Genesee County, New York. The remedy for the site included the consolidation of approximately 800,000 cubic yards of wastes, contaminated soils and sediment under a 15.5-acre landfill cap, the removal of approximately 150 drums for off-site. treatment, and the construction and restoration of a 7 -acre wetland area to repair or replace surrounding ecological habitats impacted by past waste management activities. The site achieved construction completion with the signing of the Preliminary Close-Out Report on July. 10, 2003. The trigger for this five-year review is the date of the previous five-year review report, which is September 16, 2005. This five-year review was conducted by United States Environmental Protection Agency Remedial Project Manager Michael Walters. The review was conducted pursuant to Section 121 (c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and 40 CFR 300.430(F)(4)(ii) and in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of five-year reviews is to ensure that' implemented remedies protect public health and the environment and that they function as intended by the site decision documents. This report will become part of the site file. . .

The assessment of this five-year review found that the remedy was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Records of Decision and the Explanation of Significant Differences. The immediate threats have been addressed and the remedy was found to be protective of human health . and the environment. A five-year review is required at this site due· to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

In accordance with Section 1.3.3 ofthe five-year review guidance, a subsequent statutory five-year review is triggered by the signing date of the previous five-year review report. The previous five­year review was signed on September 16,2005.

The implemented actions at the site protect human health and the environment.

11

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name (from WasteLAN): Batavia Landfill

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NYD980507693

NPL Status: 0 Final. Deleted 0 Other (specify)

Remediation Status (choose all that apply): 0 Under Construction 0 Operating • Complete

Multiple OUs? • YES 0 NO Construction completion date: July 10, 2003

Are portions of the site in use or suitable for reuse? • YES 0 NO 0 N/A

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: • EPA o State DTribe o Other Federal Agency

Author name: Michael Walters

Author title: Remedial Project Author affiliation: EPA Manager

Review period:-- 9/2005 to 9/2010

Date(s) of site inspection:

Type of review: o Post-SARA 0 Pre-SARA o NPL-Removal only o Non-NPL Remedial Action Site o NPL StatelTribe-lead , o Regional Discretion o Policy ~ Statutory

Review number: o 1 (first) o 2 (second) • 3 (third) 0 Other (specify) I

Triggering action: o Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU # o Actual RA Start at OU#-o Construction Completion • Previous Five-Year Review Report o Other (specify)

Triggering action date. (from WasteLAN): 9/16/2005

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 9/16/2010

Does the report include recommendation(s) arid follow-up action(s)? 0 yes • no Is human exposure under control? • yes 0 no Is migration of contaminated groundwater stabilized? • yes o no o not yet determined Is the remedy protective of the environment? • yes o no o not yet determined Acres in use or suitable for use: restricted: 35 acres . unrestricted:

,

City/County: Town of Batavia/Genesee County

III

Five~Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions

Institutional controls have been put in place at the. site to restrict future activities that may negatively impact the effectiveness of the implemented site remedy or threaten human health and the environment. All remedial. action objectives have been achieved. The site was delisted from the National Priorities List on November 29, 2005.

This report did not identify any issue or make any recommendation for the protection of public health and/or the environment which was not included or anticipated by the site decision documents.

. /

This site has ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring activities as part of the selected remedy. As was anticipated by the decision documents, these activities are subject to routine modification.a!1(t_~djustme~t._.:rhi~!ep_~I!j!!.~I~_des suggestions for improving, modifying, and/or adjusting these activities

Protectiveness Statement

The implemented actions at the site protect human health andthe environment. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected, as long as the site use does not change and the engineered, and aCcess and. institutional controls that are currently in place continue to be properly· operated, monitored, and maintained.

(

IV

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the third five-year review for the Batavia Landfill Superfund site,located in the Town of Batavia. Genesee County, New York. This five-year review was conducted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Michael Walters. The review was conducted pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and 40 CFR 300.430(F)(4)(ii) and in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of five-year reviews is to ensure that implemented remedies protect public health and the environment and that they' function as intended by the site decision documents. This report will become part of the site file.

A five-year review is required at this site due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants r(!main at the site above' levels that allow for· unlimited' use and unrestricted exposure.

In accordance with Section 1.3.3 of the five-year review guidance, a subsequent statutory five-year review is triggered by the signing date of the previous five-year review report. The previous five­year review was signed on September 16,2005.

The implemented actions at the site protect human health and the environment. Currently, there, are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected, as long as the site use does not change and the engineered, and access and institutional controls that are currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained.

II! SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table 1 (attached) summarizes the site-related events from discovery to construction completion. ~ .

III. BACKGROUND

Site Location

The Batavia Landfill Superfund site is located in the Town of Batavia, Genesee County, approximately three miles west-northwest of the City of Batavia, New York (see Figure 1). The site is approximately 35 acres in area and is bounded to the north and portions of the east by the Galloway Swamp, to the east by the Town's former Sanitary Lan~fill (now closed), to the south by Harloff Road (the New York State Thruway, or Interstate Route 90, is approximately 200 feet south of the Landfill); and to the west by vacant property. The Town of Batavia owns the site and the adjoining sanitary landfill to the east. The site includes the areal extent of contamination emanating from the landfill, including any contamination impacting the surrounding wetlands.

1

I

Physical Characteristics

The physical characteristics of the site have been modified by decades of waste disposal activities, culminating with the completion of the 15.5-acre landfill cap in November 2002. The site topography prior to completion of the landfill cap was extremely variable. Five ponds (seasonal and perennial) previously situated on or around the landfill site have been modified by implementation of the site remedy completed in 2002. After completion of the waste excavation activities in the northern area and the surrounding sediment, approximate 7 acres of scrub-shrub emergent wetlands (including some areas of standing water which support a submergent vegetative community) were restored or created in September and October of 2002 in accordance with the Potentially Responsible Parties' (PRPs') settlement ofa Natural Resource Damages (NRD) claim initiated by the u.S. Department ofInterior.

Site Geology/Hydrogeology

The Onondaga Limestone underlies the site and it has a total thickness of about 110 feet in Western New York. The Onondaga Limestone is fractured and therefore, in varying degrees hydraulically connected to the regional overburden aquifers and surface water bodies. The site is also located entirely within the watershed of Tonawanda Creek which flows east to west and is located about 6,000 feet to the south. The watershed of the creek extends approximately 2,000 feet north of the site. The site is also partially located within the Galloway Swamp which serves as a regional sink for surface and groundwater.

Site studies show persistent groundwater interaction between the surface and subsurface groundwater bearing zones, including the bedrock aquifer. This observation is also consistent with the detection of site contaminant compounds in all groundwater bearing zones beneath the landfill.

Three groundwater flow systems at the site include: an upper unconsolidated unit comprised of sand with varying amounts of silt, gravel and peat; a lower unconsolidated unit consisting of sands with varying amounts of silt and gravel; and the OnoIidaga Limestone formation, which is highly fractured and weathered within the top ten feet. Data suggests that groundwater flow is radial from the central portion of the landfill.

The potential for flooding at the site was evaluated during the remedial investigation. Based upon Flood Insurance Rate Map (Town of Batavia, New York, Genesee County, Pane 14 of 15) the 100­year flood extends into central portion of the 35-acre site. Existing flood insurance maps (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983) indicate that portions of the site are located in either the 100- or 500-year flood zone.

Vegetation patterns at the site are a mixture of herbaceous field, weed, and grass species. Both open-field and forested habitats characterize the surrounding area. The natural vegetation consists· of elm, red maple, and northern hardwoods, with beech, white ash, bass wood, sugar maple, hickory, hemlock, and tUlip trees. The surrounding ecology supports a variety of avian, aquatic and mammalian species. No New York State Department of \ Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Significant Habitat Areas are found at the site, although it is located within the range

.of several government wildlife ma~agement areas~

2

The nearest homes to the site are located two hundred yards to the south on Pratt Road and three hundred yards to the east on Kelsey Road. All homes adjacent to the. site were connected to the municipal waterline system in 1995.

Land and Resource Use

The area around the site includes residences situated 200 yards to the south and 300 yards to the east, a closed sanitary landfill to the immediate east, farmland to the west, and extensive wetlands to the north. Nearby private well usage has 'ceased since the e~tension of the municipal waterline to the area residents in 1995.

,

Future land usage restrictions are in place to protect the structural integrity and performance of the site remedy. Since the completion of the Remedial Action, the Town of Batavia has given some consideration to potential reuse or redevelopment scenarios for the site within the restrictions of the institutional controls. Although there has not been 'any formal planning in this regard at this time, the long grasses maintained as cap cover and the revitalized wetland areas at the site have

.___ attJ.ac..ted__yari9u~~wildlife species,_p~rticulady native and migrating birds. Regardless of any formally planned reuse or redevelopment, the seeded landfill cap. and redeveloped wetland areas are being used for environmental purposes.

History of Contamination

The . landfill accepted wastes, including industrial wastes, until 1980, the year the NYSDEC qeclared the property an open dump based on noncompliance with surface water criteria (40 CFR

. Part 257). Poor housekeeping practices and the improper disposal of industrial and hazardous wastes resulted in the closure of the site. Industrial wastes known to have been disposed of at the site include chromium hydroxide sludge, magnesium sludge, and sweepings containing barium, inks, spent solvents, and oils.

Approximately 800,000 cubic yards of wastes, contaminated soils and sediment remain at the site.

Initial Response /

,

In December 1982, Fred C. Hart Associates, under contract with EPA, conducted a ground water sampling survey ih the area of the site. Sampling data from three on-site monitoring wells, installed in 1980 for the NYSDEC, revealed the presence of hazardous organic and inorganic chemical constituents (including methylene' chloride, 1, I-dichloroethane (1,1 DCA), and barium) which exceeded New York State and Federal Drinking Water Standards. '

On December 20, 1982, the site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) and was added to the NPL by publication in the Federal Register on September 8, 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 40658).

On August 9, 1984, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with NL Industries, a PRP, for'the performance of a Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility Study (RVFS) at the site.

\ .

In August 1985, NL Industries contracted with ERCO to conduct the RIIFS. ERCO, in turn, contracted with GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York (formerly GZA Associates, Inc.,) to aid in the study.

Basis for Taking Action

A residential well sampling/analyses survey conducted in 1991 by the New York State Department of Health on homes along Pratt Road, within close proximity to the Landfill, revealed the presence of 1,1,1-trichloroeth~me (TCA) at 6 parts per billion (Ppb) and chloroform at 2 ppb in the potable water supply. These levels are below.the federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for TeA (200 ppb) arid the proposed MCL for chloroform (100 ppb). The New York State MCL for TCA, a principal organic contaminant, is ,5 ppb, and the MCL for trihalomethanes (chloroform) is 100 ppb.

Sampling and chemical analyses performed during the remedial investigation of the site revealed arsenic (167 ppb), antimony (120 ppb), barium (2,220 ppb), total chromium (181 ppb), lead (433 ppb), TCA (110 ppb), toluene (1,900 ppb), and methylene chloride (181 ppb) in the groundwater. NYSDEC Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values (T.O.G.S.Ll.l) (WQSGV) and/or EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)i were exceeded for arsenic, antimony, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, benzene and vinyl chloride. , "

The contamination to the soils was very irregular but mostly situated in higher concentrations in the southern half of the site. Sampling and chemical analyses results showed, among many other things, the presence of total chfomium (320,000 ppb), arsenic (83,800 ppb), lead (359,000 ppb), TCA (380 ppb), methylene chloride (l,lOOppb), and toluene (2,000 ppb) in the soil and sediment.

Based upon an interim baseline risk assessment performed in March 1992, EPA concluded that the contamination groundwater at the site pose an unacceptable potential health risk to the residents in the immediate vicinity of the landfill, who at that time relied on the local groundwater for domestic and consumptive purposes. A subsequent baseline risk assessment study- completed in April 1994 and an ecological risk assessmeni completed in 1998 concluded that pre-remedial site, conditions posed a significant risk to areal residents and the surrounding ecological receptors.

IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Remedy Selections

The site was addressed under two operable units. Operable Unit 1 (OU1) addressed source control and containment of the contamination at the site. The Operable Unit 2 (OU2) Interim Remedy addressed the provision of an alternate drinking water supply to nearby residents potential at risk

, to contaminants in the grouridwater at levels in excess of risk-based target cleanup levels, i.e., the Federal and New York State MCLs. '

WQSGVs and MCLs are the highest level of contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. They are promulgated standards that apply to public water systems and are intended to protect human health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water.

4

aU2 Interim Remedy

On March 31,1993, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting an OU2 Interim Remedy for the site which required the extension of the municipal water supply system to residents in the vicinity of the landfill potentially affected by the site. The remedial 'action objective of the OU2 Interim Remedy was to eliminate potential public exposure to hazardous constituents, via ingestion of groundwater from private wells situated near the site, by the provision of a clean alternate water supply source.

( .

. . '

On September 21, 1993, EPA issued an Administrative Order to the PRPs directing them to per­form the OU2 remedy which mandated extension of the municipal water supply system to nearby

. residents to prevent the potential exposure to contaminants groundwatet at the nearby landfill site. The municipal waterline extension was completed in October 1995 and EPA approved the project on January 30, 1996.

aUl Remedy

On June 6, 1995, EPA selected an 'OU1 Remedy for the site with the following remedial action objectives:

Preventing direct contact with Landfill wastes and containination; Controlling surface water runoff and erosion; Collecting and treating Landfill leachate; Preventing the infiltr~tion of contaminants into the groundwater; Controlling Landfill gas; Remediating contaminated wetland areas.

The OU1 Remedy included: (a) excavation of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the northern area of the Landfill and consolidation of these materials under a landfill cap in the southern area of the Landfill; (b) subsequent grading of the northern area of the Landfill with cleari. topsoil and reseedIng it for avegetative cover; (c) excavation and off-site treatment and disposal of approximately 150 drums from the southern area of the Landfill; (d) capping the southern region of the Landfill; (e) an explosive gas surVey to determine the need for constructing a passive gas venting layer or trench system under the cap; (f) construction of a leachate collection system, as necessary; and, (g) the performance of a pre-design ecological assessment to define impacts of the Landfill on fish, wildlife, and associated habitats.

In September 1995, EPA entered into an AOC for the performance of the remedial design (RD) for the site remedy mandated by the June 1995 ROD. Information collected during the Remedial Design Investigation, conducted from December 1996 to January 1997, indicated that disposal in the 12-acre northern area of the site was more extensive than estimated in the 1995 ROD. The northern and central areas contained approximately 126,000 cubic yards of industrial wastes commingled with municipal wastes, which was an increase. of 76,000 cubic yards above the 1995 ROD estimate. As a result, the -1995 ROD was modified on September 16, 1999 by an Explanation of Significant Differences which called for the excavation and removal of 126,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils from the northern and central areas of the site, and consolidating the material under the landfill cap inthe southern area. The RD was completed in December 1999.

5

Remedy Implementation

On September 21, 1993, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the PRPs directing them to implement the OU2 remedy which required extending the municipal waterline system to residents affected or potentially affected by the Landfill. On January 30, 1996, EPA approved the comp}(::tion and connection of the waterline system to the homes.

The ~aterline service has been extended to all residences within a 600-yard radius of the Landfill.

On July 31, 1990, the following six PRPs entered into an administrative order on consent with EP A, agreeing to remove surface and semi-buried drums from the site: Unisys Corporation, GTE­Sylvania, Eaton Corporation, R. E. Chapin Manufacturing Works, hic., the. Town of Batavia, and the City of Batavia.

In the Summer of 1991, the engineering firm of Blasland & Bouck Engineers, Inc. (BBL), under contract with these six PRPs, removed 632 drums from the surface of the site which amounted to 35.3 tons of contaminated solid wastes, 1,700 gallons of decontamination water, 27.'1 tons of crushed drums, and 55 gallons of cyanide-bearing oils.

On September 29, 2000, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York entered a Consent Decree requiring the PRPs to implement the remedial action activities at the site. In October 2000, BBL was, selected by the PRPs, and approved by EPA, to supervise the remedial action activities at the site. On February 23, 2001, Modern Environmental Group, Inc., under contract to BBL, was hired to perform the remedial action construction.

Waste Consolidation, Landfill Cap and Leachate Collection and Conveyance System , ,

Wastes located in the low-lying regions of the northern and central areas of the site as well as wastes situated in the wetlands and saturated groundwater zone in the southwest corner of the site were excavated and relocated and consolidated into the landfill in the southern region of the site. An estimated 800,000 cubic yardsof wastes and contaminated soils have been consolidated under a landfill cap. The cap was constructed to meet the substantive requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13( q).

In lieu of the performance of a post-excavation soil and sediment sampling program for the northern, central and wetland areas, the PRPs' contractor removed an additional foot of visibly clean soil and sediment beyond the boundaries of the excavated wastes. The northern and central areas were graded 'and backfilled with approximately 43,000 cubic yards of granular soil and 12,000 cubic yards of topsoil, and seeded for a vegetative cover.

The leachate collection system includes a geosynthetic drainage composite. (GDC) layer along with a series of a 6-inch diameter perforated leachate collection pipes (LCPs) that were constructed across the southern area in an east-west orientation. The LCPs drain via gravity into a series of three leachate collection manholes. The GDC layer has the capacity to handle a peak monthly leachate generation of 16,000 gallons. A 20,000-gallon aboveground indoor leachate storage tank, equipped with an automatic overfl.ow cutoff system, and a secondary containment structure of 22,000-gallon, was built to manage the leachate prior to shipment to a publicly owned treatment works.' " " '

6

The LCPs have also been sized and constructed with a minimum cleanout diameter of 6 inches and a minimum slope of one percent. This system was designed to handle the expected peak leachate flow rate of 2.19 gallons per minute.

A perimeter chain-linked fence around the site, including three gates, has been installed. Signs forbidding public access and identifying the site as potentially hazardous were installed in place at approximately IOO-foot intervals along the fenced perimeter. The groundwater monitoring network, the leachate management and gas venting systems are all operating.

Modem Environmental Inc., under BBL's supervision, has satisfactorily completed ali remaining remedial action punch-list items previously identified by EPA. The additional fieldwork, completed in July 2004, included revegetating various areas of the landfill cap, replacing dead trees and plants in the wetland areas, and securing the leachate storage building from nesting birds.

Wetlands Mitigation

After completion of the waste excavation activities in the northern area and the surrounding sediment, approximatdy seven ,acres of scrub-shrub emergent wetlands (including some areas of standing water which support a submergent vegetative community) were restored or created during September and October of 2002 in accordance with the PRPs' settlement of a NRD claim against them initiated by.the Department of Interior. Since the surface water level during the late summer/early fall·of2002 was not favorable for all the required plant species, the remainder of the planting was completed in early June 2003. The wetlands portion of the site has been restored as

. an environmental resource.

Institutional Controls Implementation

Institution~l controls have been put .in place at the site. On June 10, 2005, the Town of Batavia filed a Declaration of Easement and Covenants and Restriction with the Genesee County Clerk, which satisfied the restrictions on future land use mandated by the OUI ROD .. These restrictions include a prohibition on activities or the construction of new building or structures on the site that may negatively impact the structural integrity of the landfill or impede the performance of the landfill cap .operation systems. The Declaration of Easement specifically prohibits the construction of any drinking water wells within the site and within the area of contamination.

Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring

To maintain ~he integrity and effectiveness of the cap, routine operation and maintenance (O&M) activities are necessary. The inspection/maintenance plan for the cap calls for regular ins'pection and evaluation of the cap, mowing the vegetation during the growing season, and fence maintenance. Repairs are to be made to the. cap, as necessary, to control the effects of settling, subsidence, erosion or other events, and to prevent rainfall runoffs from eroding or otherwise . damaging the final cover. .

The inspection/m~intenance plan includes long-term groundwat~r monitoring, cap maintenance, leachate management and disposal, and the maintenance of the passive gas venting system.

7

The site is routinely managed by the Town of Batavia technical personnel and on an annual basis an inspection is coriducted as follows:

• The sittis inspected for debris, litter and/or waste.

• The landfill cap is inspected for vegetation loss due to erosion or 'poor grass growth. Annual ground inspections each spring also note the status of woody plant species on the landfill surface and side slopes.

• The landfill cap is inspected for settlement, ponding, and animal burrows.

• The gas venting pipes are inspected for damage.

• The site access gate and fence are inspected for operational locks and vandalism.

• The culverts and drainage ditches are inspected for sediment buildup or erosion. , ,

• The groundwater monitoring wells are inspected for operational locks, damage, and vandalism.

• The leachate storage tank and storage shed is inspected for operation safety and structural integrity.

The groundwater monitoring well network consists of five wells in the upper zone (BL-100U, BL­101U, BL-102U, BL-I03U and BL-104U), two wells in the lower zone (BL-105U and BL-10), and two wells in the bedrock (BL-106B and BL-107B). During the first year (2004) of the Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP), the wells were sampled quarterly and quarterly reports were submitted to the EPA. In the second and third years (2005 and 2006), the sampling and reporting frequency was on a. semiannual basis. The groundwater sampling and reporting frequency for the site has been reduced to opce per year (annual) since 2007.

The groundwater monitoring and all other required O&M activities reporting costs are approximately $160,310 on an annual basis; these costs are broken down in Table 2 (attached).

V. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

The second five-year review for this site was signed on September 16,2005. The five-year review concluded that implemented actions at the' site were protective of human health and the environment and that there were no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks.

There were also no issues raised or recommendation made by the previous 2005 five-year review.

VI.' FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS '

8

Administrative Components

The five-year review tea,m consisted of Micha'el Walters (RPM), Lora Smith (Human Health Risk Assessor), Marc Yalom (Hydro-geologist), and Michael Clemetson (Ecological Risk Assessor, Biological Technical Assistance Group).

Community Involve~ent

On March 24; 2010, EPA published. a notice in the Batavia Daily News, a local newspaper, notifying the community of the initiation of this five-year revi~w process. ' The notice indicated that EPA would be conducting a five-year review of the site to ensure that the site is protective of public health and the environment and that the implemented components of the remedy are functioning as designed. It was also indicated that once the five-year review is completed, the results will be made available in the local site repository. In addition, the notice included the RPM's address and telephone number for questions related to the five-year review process or the Batavia Landfill site. .

Document Review

The documents, data, and information which were reviewed in completing the five-year review are summarized inTable 3 (attached).

Data Review

Groundwater and surface water analytical results from. 2005 through 2009 were reviewed and are discussed below. Groundwater and surface waters were monitored semi-annually in 2005 and .2006, and annually in subsequent years.

Groundwater

The upper unconsolidated unit is monitored by five wells: BL-I00U, BL-I01U, BL-102U, BL­103U, and BL~104U. .The lower unconsolidated unit is monitored by two wells, BL-I05L and BL­10. The bedrock aquifer, (the Onondaga Limestone formatiori) is monitored by two wells, BL-I06B and BL-I07B. Bedrock well BL-16R was decommissioned after the October 2006 sampling event.

Monitoring of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in bedrock well BL-I07B was discontinued after the October 2006 sampling event. (EPA approved this discontinuation in March 2007.) BL­107B is monitored only for inorganic metals ..

VOCs and inorganics (metals) exceeded New York Groundwater Effluent Limitations ("standards,,)2 and/or U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)3 for a number of contaminants' in on-site groundwater, monitoring wells. VOC exceedances included benzene,

. '. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of WaterTechnical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1, Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations, June 1998. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Maximum Contaminant Levels, EPA 816-F-09-0004, May 2009.

9

chloroethane, 1, 1-dichloroethane, 1, 2-dichloroethane, 1, 1-dichloroethene, cis-I, 2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride. Inorganic exceedances included arsenic, barium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and sodium (Tables 5 through 9)..

The maximum VOC exceedances in the upper unconsolidated unit are presented in Table 5. The greatest number and highest maximum VOC values occurred at well BL-I02U. Chloroethane, I, I-dichloroethane, and cis-I, 2..;dichloroethene in BL-I 02U exceeded New York standards in the most recent (June 2009) sampling event. In BL-I02U, chloroethane at 33 micrograms per liter (llg/L), I, I-dichloroethane at 5.5 Ilg/L, and cis-l,2-dichloroethene at 6.1 IlglL exceeded standards (5 Ilg/L for all three compounds) in the most recent (June 2009) sampling event. Most maximwns in the upper consolidated unit are observed in 2005 and 2006, with some decrea~ing trends noted since those years.

The benzene concentration at upper unconsolidated unit well BL-I 04U declined fro·m a maximum of 4.9 IlglL (estimated) in 2006 to 2.4 Ilg/L (estimated) in 2009. The standard for benzene is 1 Ilg/L.

Maximum concentrations of vinyl chloride at BL-IOIU of2.3 Ilg/L (estimated) and at BL-I02U of 2.4 Ilg/L (estimated) occurred in 2006, exceeding the standard of 2 Ilg/L. The vinyl chloride standard was exceeded at BL-I03U (3.0 Ilg/L-estimated) in 2008. All upper unconsolidated unit vinyl chloride concentrations were below the standard in the 2009 sampling event.

.1, J-DiGhloroethene was detected only in well BL-I02U at 7 Ilg/L in 2006 (standard of 5 IlglL). Subsequent concentrations of I, I-,dichloroethene In BL-I 02U were below the standard.

'Inorganic exceedances in the upper unconsolidated unit, included arsenic, barium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, and sodium (Table 6). Six parameters exceeded New York standards during the review period at well BL-I 0 I U, with five exceedances during the 2009 monitoring event. Arsenic concentrations were highly variable with no apparent trends. Exceedances of the MCL for arsenic (10 Ilg/L) in 2009 occurred at wells BL-IOOU (17 Ilg/L), BL-101U (55 Ilg/L), and BL-I03U (24 Ilg/L). In 2008, arsenic was detected in BL-I04U (19 Ilg/L) and decreased to non­detect (less than 10 Ilg/L) in the 2009 event. All other wells exceeded at least three federal MCL or New York standards in 2009.

Lead detections were generally irifrequent, with concentrations exceeding the MCL (15 Ilg/L) at BL-10iu (17.4 IlglL) in 2008, and subsequently dropping below the standard in 2009. At BL­103U a value of 23.2 Ilg/L was measured in 2009. No apparent trend in lead concentrations is discemabk

The barium detection 'at well BL-l 0 1 U of 1,010 IlglL in 2009 exceeded the standard of 1,000 Ilg/L. The history of barium concentrations in this well may indicate an increasing concentration trend.

In the lower unconsolidated' unit, the New York standards for benzene (1 IlglL) , chloroethane (5 Ilg/L), 1, I-dichloroethane (5 Ilg/L) and cis-I, 2-dichloroethene (5 Ilg/L) were exceeded at well BL-I0 during the rev.iew period (Table 7). Benzene and chloroethane peaked in 2007 with the concentrations declining in 2009 to 1.2 Ilg/L and 31 Ilg/L, respectively. 1, I-dichloroethane and cis-I, 2-dichloroethene concentrations in well BL-IO peaked in 2005 and decreased to below

10

standards by 2007 and 2006, respectively. There were no exceedances in lower unconsolidated unit well BL-l OSL.

Inorganic exceedances in the lower unconsolidated unit included arsenic, barium, iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium (Table 8). The four latter metals were detected above New York standards in BL-l 0 ~nd BL-I0SL during the 2009 monitoring period. Arsenic (MCL of 10 IlglL) in BL-l 0 exhibits a steady concentration trend about the 2009, detection of 37 JlglL. Arsenic did not exceed the MCL in welll0SL during the review period. While inorganics concentrations are generally higher in BL-I0 than in BL-I0SL, the concentrations of arsenic, barium, iron and magnesium exhibit decreases over the review period. .

The barium concentration in well BL-1 0 decreased from steadily in excess of the standard of 1,000 IlglLas late as 2007, to 76S IlglL in 2009. Barium did not exceed the standard in well, 1 OSL during the review period.

The concentration of iron in well BL-10 decreased from a high in 2006 (IS,SOO IlglL) to 9,280 IlglL in 2009. The BL-l OSL iron concentration in 2009 of 4,870 Ilg/L is representative of a steady trend commencing in 2006.

Magnesium concentrations in well BL-I0 have decreased from a high in 2006 of 132,000 Ilg/L, to 84,100 Ilg/L in 2009. The magnesium concentration in BL-lOSL has remained fairly constant during the review period, around the 2009 concentration of 63,600 Ilg/L.

Bedrock aquifer wells BL-I06B and BL-"107B were free of VOC exceedances over the review period. Barium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and sodium have exceeded New York standards during the review period (Table 9). Ir~m and magnesium in wells BL-I06B and BL-I07B, and manganese in well BL-I07B, exceeded New York standards in the 2009 monitoring event. Maximum barium concentrations (standard of 1,000 Ilg/L) at wells BL-I07B and BL-I06B of 1,810llglL and 1,270 IlglL~ respectively, in 200S, declined to 23S Ilg/L in BL.,107B and 98 Ilg/L in BL-I06B in 2009. Barium, magnesium, and sodium exhibit concentration decreases in both wells over the review period, while manganese increases are observed;

Iron concentrations exhibit relatively steady trends about the 2009 detections of 17,SOO Ilg/L in BL-I06B and 24,SOO IlglL at BL-l 07B. Magnesium concentrations decreased from highs in 200S of 97,80b IlglL at BL-107B and 84,000 Ilg/L at BL-I06B to SS,9001lglL and 43,400 Ilg/L, respectively, in 2009.

The sodium concentrations in the bedrock aquifer \ wells have decreased to below the standard (20,000 Ilg/L) during the review period. Sodium in well BL-107B decreased from 23,800 Ilg/L in 200S to 13,900 Ilg/L in 2009. The sodium concentration decreased at well BL-I06B from 23,700 IlglL in 200S to 16,400 IlglL in 2009.

Manganese concentrations showed increases in well BL-I07B, exceeding the standard (300 .)lg/L) and then peaking in 2006 at 402 Ilg/L. By 2009, the concentration in BL-I 07 was 370llg/L.

Surface Water

Surface water is monitored at two wetland locations, Wetland B-1 (sample point WL-Bl) and Wetland C-l (sample point WL-Cl), and analyzed for VOCs and inorganics. VOC analytes did not exceed New York standards or Federal Water Quality Criteria (WQC) during the review period. Several inorganic results exceeded the WQC andlor the New York standards for aluminum, iron, lead, selenium, and zinc (Table 10). Iron at WL-B 1, and iron, aluminum, lead and selenium exceeded WQC and/or New York standards at WL-C 1 during the 2009 monitoring event.

Surface water is monitored at two wetland locations, Wetland B-1 (sample point WL-BI) and Wetland C-I (sample point WL-CI), and analyzed for VOCs and inorganics. VOC analytes did not exceed New York standards or Federal Water Quality Criteria (WQC) during the review· period.

Several inorganic results exceeded the WQCandlor the New York standards for aluminum, iron, lead, selenium, and zinc (Table 10). The aluminum concentrations (WQC of 87 ~g/L) were variable, with concentrations generally lower at WL-B 1 than at WL-B2. The WL-B 1 maximum was observed in 2005 at 1,300 Jlg/L, decreasing to less than 100 ~glL in 2009. At WL-C-I, the maximum was 19,900 ~g/L in 2006, decreased to less than 100 ~g/L in 200S,and increased to 9,1 00 ~g/L in 2009. I

Iron concentrations (standard of 300 . ~g/L) have been 'variable. At WL-B 1, the maximum concentration of 5,730 ~g/L was observed in June 200S, and dropped to S30 ~glL in 2009. WL­C 1 iron spiked at an anomalous measurement of 26,600 ~g/L iil 2006, dropped to 344 ~g/L in 200S, and roseto 10,100 ~g/L in 200Q.

Surface water lead concentrations at WL-Cl exhibited an anomalous spike, with a maximum of 36.S ~g/L in 2006, followed by two years of non-detects (less than 5 ~glL), before rising to 11.5 ~glL in 2009. The fed~ral WQC for lead is 2.5 ~glL.

Concentrations of zinc have been detected above standards (1S5 ~g/L) at WL-C 1, but the . detections were highly variable. After spiking at 1,490 ~glL in 2006, zinc concentrations decreased to non-detected (less than 20 ~g/L) for two years, before rising to 334 ~g/L in 2009:

Site Inspection

On April 27, 2010, a 5-year site inspection was conducted by EPA. Representatives for the City and Town Batavia and ARCADIS of New York (formerly Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.,) also participated in the event. The landfill cap was inspected for signs of erosion, grass growth, litter, and ponding and leachate outbreaks. All indications are that the landfill cap is structural sound .. The groundwater monitoring wells are secured with locks and the casings are in good condition.

The Leachate Storage Building has over the last few years been invaded by nesting birds that have gained access into the interior of the structure by digging and burrowing a shallow entrance path in the unpaved ground surface underneath the meshed entrance door. The overall interior of the building is littered with bird feces. ARCADIS will rectify the problem by paving around the exterior perimeter of the building with concrete or asphalt. The control/shutoff systems to prevent tank overflows are functional and in place.

12

The overall leachate collection system is well maintained. The landfill gas vents have built-in bird. screens to prevent blockages from nesting.· The perimeter fencing is well. maintained and adequately deters trespassing and illegal dumping. However, with the exception of the entrance gate, "No Trespassing" signs are for the most part not visible throughout the site, inCluding around the perimeter.. "No Trespassing" signs that have been removed, destroyed or lost should be immediately replaced.

The wetland mitigation area in the northern area of the site as well as wetland areas to the east of landfill contains large ponds of standing water, with lush green vegetation. The wetland areas to the east of the site are moist but with a sparse, more sporadic vegetative presence.

Interviews

During a site inspection on April 27, 2010, EPA conducted separate interviews with Mr. Rodney Cook, Town of Batavia Highway Superintendent, and Mr. Joseph Molina Ill, P.E., Vice President of ARC AD IS.

Mr. Cook sees no problems with the execution of required operation and maintenance activities. He acknowledges that the landfill cap systems are functional, in very good operating condition; as designed, and that the restored seven-acre wetland ecosystems (replanted trees, standing water and vegetative species, etc.,) are thriving. . .

Mr. Molina added that the site remedy, based on his review of the operation and maintenance records, continues to be a suCcess approximately seven years after completion of the remedial· construction in 2003. The annual operation and maintenance costs, according to Mr. Molina, have remained essentially constant over the last five years and he feels reassured that the site remedy, with the appropriatt( mechanisms in place, will continue· to effective for the foreseeable future.

Institutional Controls Verification

On' June 10, 2005, Counsel for. the Town of Batavia filed a Declaration of Easements and Covenants and Restrictions with the Genesee County Clerk's Office that placed institutional controls on the future use of the site property. These items completed the .institutional controls requirement of the ROD.

Specifically, these institutional controls prohibit the installation or utilization of wells for potable water within the area of groundwater contamination at the site.

Accordingly, the Town of Batavia authorizes EPA~ NYSDEC and the United States Department of Interior continuing access. to the site for purposes of inspecting. the monitoring and maintenance activities, verifying compliance with the. remedial activities required. by the 1995 ROD and the Consent Decree, and confirming that no action has been or is. being implemented in violation of the Consent Decree or the 1995 ROD. The institutional controls mandated by the authority of the Genesee County Clerk remain in effect and EPA maintains a copy of these land use restrictions on file.

Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring

13

This site has ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring activities as part of the selected remedy. This report includes suggestions for improving, modifying, and/or adjusting the implemented remedy (Table 4) .

. VII. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

The 1993 ROD required the connection of the municipal water supply system to residents affected or potentially affected by the site. Potential exposure to site contaminants has been eliminated by the connection of the municipal waterline to the nearby residents.

The 1995 ROD, as modified by the ESD, called for, among other things, the excavation and consolidation of contaminated soils, sediment and wastes from the low-lying northern part of the site under a newly installed landfill cap in the higher terrain of the southern portion of the site, the installation of a leachate collection and management system, and the long:-term monitoring of the groundwater quality.

The purpose of the response action was to reduce the risk to human health and the environment and to eliminate or minimize adverse effects previous site conditions posed to the. surrounding ecology due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous constituents into the soils, sediment, surface waters and groundwater.

The capping of the landfill also minimizes the infiltration of rainfall into the landfill, thereby reducing the potential for contaminants leaching from the landfill and negatively impacting the wetlands habitat and groundwater quality. Capping was to also prevent direct contact exposure to contaminated soils. The leachate management system in place, is designed to control, minimize or eliminate, with the best available technology, .the off-site migration of contaminant constituents into the local groundwater bearing zones. In addition, the final remedy also involved the remediation and restoration ofseven acres of wetlands at the site. Institutional controls have been put in place at the site to restrict future activities at the site that may negatively impact the effectiveness of the implemented site remedy or threaten human health and the environment.

These site restrictions include a ban on the construction and usage of drinking water wells and new building structures within the area of contamination that may impede the effectiveness of the landfill cap systems.

Monitoring data since the last 5-year review reveals a general decrease in the concentrations of VOCs in th~ groundwater and surface~waters. Chemical constituents such as l,l,l-TCA and toluene are now at. non-detectable concentrations in the groundwater as shown in the 2009 sampling event, and methylene chloride is indicated only in one well at an estimated concentration below New York standards and federal MCLs. The concentrations of inorganic constituents (metals) in the groundwater and surface water bodies at the site have also shown a steady decrease in concentration levels over the last five years. Lead was detected at 5.8 parts per billion (Pbb) for

. 14

the first time in 2009 at a site bedrock well. However, this concentration level is well below the federal and state drinking water standards.

Based upon the information reviewed, it appears th,at the remedy is functioning as intended by the decision document.s.

Question B: Are the exposure assump!ions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time ofremedy selection still valid?

The remedial action objectives for the site are to prevent human exposure to contaminated soil and ground water. Implementation of the OUI andOU2 remedies have attained these objectives by utilizing permanent solutions in the effective short-term and long-term abatement o~ the, human health and ecological risks posed by the' site. Poteritial public exposure to site contaminants has been eliminated by the extension of the municipal waterline system to area residences in the general vicinity of the site. The final remedy is reducing the toxiCity, mobility, and volume of site contaminants by reducing infiltration through the landfill wastes and collecting and treating the leachate. The potential for vapor intrusion into nearby residences, evaluated prior to the 2005 5­year review, ,was then determined not likely to be of concern at the site. Soil vapor intrusion is evaluated when soils and/or 'groundwater are known or suspected to contain VOCs. A. few exceedances of benzene, chloroethane, i, l-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, I, l-dichloroethene, cis-I,2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride have been reported in groundwater in the last five years but only benzene, chloroethane, I, l-dichloroethane and cis-I,2-dichloroethene were observed above NYS TOGS in the last year of sampling (wells BL-IOIU, BL-I02U, BL-I04U, and BL-:IO). There were nb exceedances of Federal MCLs in 2009. A comparison of maximum groundwater VOC concentrations' with groundwater values. provided' in the OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (November 2002), shows minor exceedances of groundwater contaminant concentrations for vinyl chloride (1.9J in BL-IOIU and BL-I02'U, 0.90J in BL-I03U and 0.94J in BL-I04U) and trichloroethylene (0.83J in BL-I05L) currently. Since only minor exceedances ofTCE and vinyl chloride have been detected recently and the surrounding area is mostly rural, with no buildings in close proximity to the site (within 100 feet), the vapor intrusion pathway remains incomplete at the Batavia Landfill and a vapor intrusion investigation is not necessary at this time. Continued monitoring ofVOCs,in groundwater will ensure protectiveness of human health via the vapor intrusion pathway.

The site has limited access provided by the construction of a chain-linked perimeter fence, posted with signs prohibiting trespassing, and the Town ofBatavia has placed institutional controls on the site to prevent any future activity that may negatively impact the OUI and OU2 remedies. These measures prevent human and ecological exposures to wastes remaining in-place.

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

There is no information that calls into question the protectiveness of the selected remedy.

Technical Assessment Summary

15

Based upon the results of the five-year review, it has been concluded that:

• The landfill cap and vegetative cover are intact and in good condition;

• The fence around the landfill cap within the site is intact and in good repair;

• The monitoring wells are functional ;

• There is no evidence of trespassing or vandalism;

• The remedy has prevented residents from drinking contaminated groundwater;

• No additional measures are needed to protect public health.

VIII. ISSUES, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

This report did not identify any issue or make any recommendation for the protection of public health and/or the environment which was not included or anticipated by the site decision documents.

IX. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

The implemented actions at the site protect human health and the environment. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected, as long as the site use does not change and the engineered, and access and institutional controls that are currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained.

X. NEXT REVIEW

Since hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Batavia Landfill site which do not allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure, in accordance with 40 CFR 300.430 (f) (4) (ii), the remedial action for the site shall be reviewed no less often than every five years. EPA will conduct another five-year review before September 20) O.

Walter E. Mugdan, Director Date Emergency and Remedial Response Division

16

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

1982 Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL·

1984 Site officially entered on the NPL

1990 Six PRPs signed AOC to perform a Drum Removal Operation

1991 NYSDOH groundwater sampling results showed site contaminants in nearby residential wells, 632 drums (some filled with wastes) were removed from the Landfill by the PRPs

1992 GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York under contract to NL Industries (a PRP) completed RI; EP A performed Groundwater Risk Assessment and wrote a Preface to· Rl.

1993 EPA issued OU2 ROD for extension o(a municipal waterline "to the nearby residencies

1994 GZA completed Feasibility Study

1995 PRPscompleted the extension of the municipal waterline to nearby residencies, EPA issues OUI ROD mandating the site remedy, Regional Administrator signs AOC for implementation of remedial design activities for the site remedy

1996 EPA invited the PRPs to participate in a Superfund Cost Allocation Pilot

1998 Final Allocation Report was completed .

1999 ESD was signed by the Regional Administrator

2000 RD approved (8/00)

2001 Construction initiated (6/01)

2002 Pre-final inspection (12/02)

2003 Construction completed (6/03), Final inspection (7/03), Preliminary Close-Out Report (7/03), EPA approval of RA Report (09103)

2005 2nd Five-Year Review (07/05), Site Deletion from NPL (11105)

Table 2: Annual Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Costs

Activity Cost per Year

. Landfill Cap Maintenance . , $33,000

Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis $101,560

Wetland Monitoring, Maintenance and Reporting $25,750

Total Annual O&M Costs. $160,310

Table 3: Documents Reviewed for Five -Year Review

Record of Decision - Batavia Landfill, EPA, June 1995

Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), EPA, September 1996

Remedial Investigation Report, Vol. 1-5, GZAGeoEnvironmental of New York, May 1992

Feasibility Study, GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York, March 1994

Risk Assessment - Batavia Landfill Site, TRC Environmental Corporation, April 1994

Consent Decree, Docket#: 00-CV-0838, entered December 28,2000

Remedial Des!gn Work Plan, Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., January I 996

Remedial Design Report, Blasland, Bouck & Lee; Inc., April 2000

Bidding & Contract Documents Construction, Engineering Management, Inc., November 2000

Remedial Action Work Plan, Blasland, Bouck ISl Lee, Inc., June 2001

Remedial Action Report, Blasland Bouck & Lee, Inc., March 2003; Revised July 2003

Preliminllry Close-Out Report - Batavia Landfill Site, EP A, J~ly 2003

Operation and, Maintenance Plan, Blasland, Bouck and Lee, Inc., March 2003

2003 Wetland Monitoring Report, Blasland Bouck and Lee, November 2003

Groundwater Sampling Report; Blasland Bouck and Lee, Inc., April 2004

Groundwater Sampling Report, Blasland Bouck and Lee, Inc., August 2004

Five Year Review Report for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, EPA, September 2005

Second Semiannual Progress Report (2005) for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, Blasland, Bouck & Lee Inc., January 6, 2006.

Second Semiannual Progress Report (2005) for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, Blasland, Bouck & Lee Inc., January 6,2006.

Table 3: Documents Reviewed for Five -Year Review (Continued)

First Semiannual 2006 Groundwater and Surface-water Sampling Event for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, Blasland, Bouck and Lee, Inc., May 2006.

Semiannual Progress Report for the Batavia 'Landfill Superfund Site, Blasland, Bouck & Lee Inc., July 2006.

2006 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, Blasland Bouck and Lee, October 2006.

Second Semiannual Progress Report (2006) for the Batavia Landfill S~perfund Site, Blasland Bouck and Lee, Inc., January 2007:

Annual 2007 Groundwater and Surface-water Sampling and Analysis Report and Annual Inspection Checklist for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS of New York, Inc., August 2007.

2007 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS of New York, Inc., November 2007. 2007 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS of New York, Inc., November 2007. ,

Annual 2008 Groundwater and Surface-water Sampling and Analysis Report and Annual Inspection Checklist·for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS ofNew York, Inc., August 2008.

,

Spring 2008 Wetland Inspection Report for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS of New York, Inc., May 2008.

Summary of the 2008 Wetland Inspection and Maintenance Activities at the Batavia Laridfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS o(New York, Inc., October 2008.

AnnualProgress Report for2008, Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS of New York, In~., January 2009.

Annual Progress Report for 2008, Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS of New York, Inc., January 2009.

Annual 2009 Groundwater and Surface-water Sampling and Analysis Report and Annua! Inspection Checklist for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS of New York, Inc., August 2009.

Annual Progress Report for 2009, Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, ARCADIS ofNew York, Inc., January 2010.

Table 4: Other Comments on Operation,Maintenance, and Monitoring

COMMENT SUGGESTION

The Leachate Storage Building has been invaded by nesting birds that have burrowed a path in through the unpaved ground surface.

The exterior ground surface around the Leachate Storage Building should be paved with concrete or asphalt to keep the birds out.

With the exception of the entrance gate, there are no posted signs to repel trespassing.

"No Trespassing" signs should be posted around the perimeter of the site.

, Table 5

Batavia Landfill Superfund Site - 2010 Five Year: Review Upper Unconsolidated Unit Groundwater Monitori~g Results

Volatile Organic Compounds Exceeding Stan~ards 2005-2009 I

I

Analyte NYS

TOGS 1.1.1

MCL BL-IOOU BL-IOlU BL-I02U BL-I03U BL-I04U

Maximum Date Maximum Date Maximum Date Maximum Date Maximum Date

Benzene I 2 LlJ 5/11/06 4.9 J 10/12/06 Chloroethane 5 None 9 38 5/11/06 I,I-dichloroethane 5 None 5/11/06 51 5111/06 1,2-dichloroethane 0.6 5 I,I-dichloroethene 5 '7 7 5/11106 cis-l,2-dichloroethene 5 70 10 5/11106 Vinyl chloride 2 2 2.3 J 5/11106 2.4 J 5/11/06 3.0 J 6/11/08

Notes: I

All concentrations in micrograms/liter (JLglL); Blank cells indicate that the analyte was not detected above NYS TOGS 1.1.1 or MCL. J - The analyte was positively identified; hOwever, the associated value is an estimated concentration. . NYS TOGS 1.1.1 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1, Ambient Water

Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Eftluent Limitations, June. 1998. MCL - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Maximum Contaminant Levels, USEPA EPA 816-F-09-0004, May 2009.

Table 6 :

Batavia Landfill Superfund Site - 2010 Five Year Review Upper Unconsolidated Unit Groundwater Monitoring Results

Inorganic Analytes Exceeding Standards 2005-2009

\

Analyte NYS

TOGS 1.1.1

MCL BIAOOU BL-I0lU BL-I02U BL-I03U BL-I04U

Maximum Date Maximum Date Maximum Date Maximum Date Maximum Date

Arsenic 25 10 131 6/11/08 55 6/29/09 52.3 5/11/06 19 6/11/08 Barium 1000 2000 1020 6/29/09 Iron 300 None 116000 6/11/08 29200 10/28/05 27,400 6/11108 56800 5/11/06 44500 6/11/08· Lead 25 15 17.4 6/11108 23.2 6/29/09 Magnesium 35000 None ·53800 10/12/06 159,000 5/11/06 61000 6/11/08 85 800 10/28/05 79800 10/12106 Manganese 300 None 752 10112/06 621 10/28/05 637 , 6111/08 669 5/11/06 450 10/12/06 Sodium 20000 None 540000 6/29/09 85500 10/28/05 18800 10112106 33200 10/28/05 384000 6/29/09

Notes: All concentrations in microgramslliter (JLg/L); Blank cells indicate that the analyte was not detected above NYS TOGS 1.1.1 or MCL. NYS TOGS 1.1.1 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1, Ambient Water

Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Eftluent Limitations, June 1998. . MCL - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Maximum Contaminant Levels, USEPA EPA 816-F-09-0004, May 2009. Lead MCL is regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness oftheir water. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed

15 JLg/L, water systems must take additional steps.

Table 7 Batavia Landfill Superfund Site - 2010 Five Year Review

Lower Unconsolidated Unit Groundwater Monitoring Results Volatile Organic Compounds Exceeding Standards

2005-2009

Analyte NYS

TOGS 1.1.1

MCL BL-I0SL BL-IO

Maximum Date Maximum Date

Benzene 1 2 3.7J 6/12/07 Chloroethane 5 None· 62 6112/07 1,I-dichloroethane 5 None 23 12/28/05 cis-l ;2-dichloroethene 5 70 6.9 10128/05

Notes: All concentrations in micrograms/liter (llglL); Blank cells indicate that the analyte was not detected above NYS TOGS 1.1.1 or MCL. J - The analyte was positively identified; however, the associated value is an estimated concentration. NYS TOGS 1.1.1- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1, Ambient Water

Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations, June 1998. . MCL - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Maximum Contaminant Levels, USEPA EPA 816-F-09-0004, May 2009.

Table 8 Batavia Landfill Superfund Site - 2010 Five Year Review

Lower Unconsolidated Unit Groundwater Monitoring Results Inorganic Analytes Exceeding Standards

2005-2009

Analyte NYS

TOGS . 1.1.1

MeL BL-I0SL BL-IO

Maximum Date Maximum Date

Arsenic 25 10 49.2 10/28/05 Barium 1000 2000 1530 6112/07 Iron 300 None 10900 10/28/05 15500 5/11106 Magnesium 35,000 None 67,500 10/28/05 132,000 5/11106 Manganese 300 None 1610 6112/07 Sodium 20000 . None 94800 6112/07

Notes: All concentrations in micrograms/liter (JLg/L); Blank cells indicate that the analyte was not detected above NYS TOGS 1.1.1 or MCL. NYS TOGS 1.1.1 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1, Ambient Water

Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations, June 1998. MCL - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Maximum Contaminant Levels, US EPA EPA 816-F-09-0004, May i009.

Table 9 Batavia Landfill Superfund Site - 2010 Five Year Review

Bedrock Aquifer Groundwater Monitoring Results Inorganic Analytes Exceeding Standards

2005-2009

Analyte NYS

TOGS 1.1.1

MeL BL-I06B BL-I07B

Maximum Date Maximum Date

Barium 1,000 2,000 1,270 10/28/05 1,810 10128/05 Iron 300 None 35,300 5/11/06 27,100 6112107 Magnesium 35,000 None 84,000 10/28/05 97,800 10/28/05 Manganese 300 None 402 10112106 Sodium 20,000 None 23,700 10/28/05 23,800 10/28/05

Notes: All concentrations in microgramslliter (ILglL); Blank cells indicate.that the analyte was not detected above NYS TOGS 1.1.1 or MCL. NYS TOGS 1.1.1- New York State [)epartment of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1, Ambient Water

Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations, June 1998. MCL - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Maximum Contaminant Levels, USEPA EPA 816-F-09-0004, May 2009.

Table 10 Batavia Landfill Superfund Site - 2010 Five Year Review

Wetlands Surface Water Monitoring Results Inorganic Analytes Exceeding Standards

2005-2009

Analyte NYS

TOGS 1.1.1

Fed WQC

WL-Bl WL-Cl

Maximum Date Maximum Date

Aluminum 100 87 19900 10112/06 Iron - 300 1000 5,730 6/11/08 26600 10112/06 Lead 3 2.5 36.8 10112/06 Selenium 4.6 5 Zinc 185 264 1490 10112/06

Notes: All concentrations in micrograms/liter (tLg/L); Blank cells indicate that the analyte was not detected above NYS TOGS 1.1.1 or WQC. NYS TOGS 1.1.1 - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1, Ambient Water

Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations, June 1998. Fed WQC - Criterion Continuous Concentration values are taken from National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 (WQc), USEPA EPA 822-R-02-047,

November 2002.