THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT ADDENDUM

JOHNSTOWN CITY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN, FULTON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Prepared by: United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region 2

New York, New York

September 2014

Walter E. Mugdan, Director Emergency and Remedial Response Division

282499

IDmI Mil WO ~I~ 1110 WO WI 1111

I. Introduction

A five-year review (FYR) addendum is generally completed for remedies where a protectiveness determination is deferred until additional information can be obtained. When deferring protectiveness in a FYR report, the Environmental Protection Agency typically provides a timeframe for when the information will be obtained and a protectiveness statement can be made. FYR addenda present the progress since the FYR and protectiveness determinations for the remedies where the statement was deferred.

The third FYR for the Johnstown City Landfill Superfund site, completed on December 8, 2010, raised concerns about elevated concentrations of iron and manganese in surface water and groundwater samples. Because further assessment was needed to evaluate potential iron and manganese sources, an ecological protectiveness determination could not be made.

As a result of the aforementioned issues, Operable Unit 1 (OU1) and sitewide protectiveness statements could not be made until the noted information was obtained. The protectiveness statement outlined in the third FYR report for the Johnstown City Landfill Superfund site was as follows:

"A protectiveness determination for this site cannot be made until additional information is obtained. It is expected that a report addendum containing a protectiveness statement will be issued within eighteen months of the date of this report."

This document presents the sampling data obtained since the December 8, 201 O FYR and provides updated OU1 and sitewide protectiveness statements.

II. Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

During the last FYR period, iron and manganese concentrations at surface water location SW-1 (located immediately downstream of the landfill) were consistently above standards, ranging from 1,070 to 507,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and from 408 to 1,130 ug/L, respectively. In order to evaluate whether elevated concentrations of iron and manganese in surface water downstream of surface water location SW-1 reflect possible leachate discharge, six co-located surface water and sediment samples were collected on July 23, 2014 (see Figure 1 for the locations). These samples are in addition to the three surface water/sediment locations already sampled biannually. The samples are considered appropriate for assessing whether leachate is impacting the stream due to their close proximity to the landfill.

Iron background concentrations in surface water have historically ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 micrograms per liter (ug/I) (as measured at surface water location SW-2). Iron concentrations in the July 2014 samples range from 1,200 (surface water location SW-9)

to 3,440 ug/I (surface water location SW-4), indicating that the landfill is not impacting the surface water at significant levels above background.

Manganese background concentrations in surface water have historically ranged from 79.9 to 87.00 ug/I (as measured at location SW-2). Manganese concentrations in the July 2014 samples range from 239.9 ug/I (surface water location SW-9) to 431.9 (surface water location SW-4).

Iron and manganese in sediment currently do not have New York State Department of Environmental Conservation lowest and severe effect screening levels. However, concentrations of iron in sediment ranged from 26,000 (sediment location SED-9) to 36,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (sediment location SED-4), as compared to concentrations of 3,070 to 5,750 mg/kg at background sediment location SED-2. Concentrations of manganese in sediment ranged from 240 (sediment location SED-5) to 1,200 mg/kg (sediment location SED-4), as compared to a concentration of 135 to 203 mg/kg at background sediment location SED-2.

Based on the current surface water and sediment sample results, it does not appear that the levels of iron and manganese are of ecological concern, as concentrations are relatively consistent with background or are localized, indicating there are not widespread impacts from the landfill leachate. Hence, further assessment of ecological risk is not warranted at this time. However, since concentrations of these two metals are generally higher in surface water location SW-4, which is closest to surface water/sediment location SW-1/SED-1 and the landfill, sediment and surface water sampling should continue on a biannual basis. It is also recommended that future monitoring include the new sample locations from the July 2014 event.

Ill. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

No additional issues or recommendations have been identified since the completion of the third FYR.

IV. Protectiveness Statement

Based on the new information and actions taken since the first five-year review's completion date, the protectiveness statement for the site is being revised as follows:

The implemented OU1 remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents and is protecting human health and the environment in the short-term. In order for the site to be protective in the long-term, an institutional control is needed to prohibit the installation of groundwater wells on the landfill property as well as to protect the integrity of the landfill cap.

2

Sitewide

The implemented sitewide remedy is functioning as intended by the decision documents and is protecting human health and the environment in the short-term. In order for the site to be protective in the long-term, an institutional control is needed to prohibit the installation of groundwater wells on the landfill property as well as to protect the integrity of the landfill cap.

V. Next Review

The next five-year review for the Johnstown City Landfill Superfund site should be completed before December 8, 2015.

3

UI VJ

§ ;:

~

~ !!! ~ CJ ;; ~

~

0

• 0

2014 Sampling Location

B~seline/Routine SW Sampling Location

125 250 500 750

SCALE IN FEET

N

A 1,000

SEDIMENT EVALUATION

SEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS - AERIAL

FIGURE

ARCADIS

0

SOMS Doc ••It lllllDI

109'71

Third Five-Year Review Report

Johnstown City Landfill Superfund Site

Fulton County

To,vn ofJohnstown, New York

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2

New York, New York

December 20 I 0

Table ofCootcnts

Acronyms Used in Lhis Docu1nc:nt Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . ES- I Five-Year Review Swnmary Fonn . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2 I. lmroduction . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . • . • . . • • • • . • • • • . • . . • . . . • • . . • • . . • . . I

II. Site Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . • • .. • . . . • . . . • .. • • . • • • . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . . . I UI. Background . . • . • • . . . . . • . • . • . • • . . . • . • . • • . • • . . • . . . • • • . • . • . • • • . • . • . I

Site Location . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Ph)l"ical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 2 Site Gcology/Hydrogcology . . • . • • . . . . . . . • . . • • . • . • . • . • . . . • . 2 Land and RC$-Ource Use . • . • . • . • . . • • . • • . . . . • . . • . . . . • . . • . . . 2 HistoryofContamin:itjon . . . . . .........•...•...•...•.... . . 3 Initial Response . • . . • . . . • • • . • • . • • • . . . . . . . . . • • • . • • . . • . . . 3 Basis for Taking Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 3

IV. Remedial Actions .. . . .. . . ........ ... . . ..•....•... . . .. ..... . ....... 4 Remedy Selection • . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • • . 4 Remedy Implementation • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . • • • . . . • . • . . . 5 Institutional Controls Implementation . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance/Monitoring . . . . . . . . . 6

V. Progress Since Last Five-Year Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 VI. Fivc-Ycar Review Process . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Administrative Co1nponents . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 8 Community Involvement . . . . . . . • . . • • . • • • . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 8 Document RcviC\v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . S Data Review • . .. . . .. .. . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .. . . 8 Five·Year Review Site Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Institutional Controls Verification • • • • • • • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring, and Institutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

VII. Technical Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 12 • Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question B: Arc the exposure assumptions. toxicity data. cleanup levels. and remedial action objectives used at the time ofthe remedy still valid713 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?.... . . . . . . . 13 Technical AS-'=mcnt Summary . . • . • . • . • . . . . . . . . • . • • . • • . • 13

Vlll. Issues. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . 15 IX. Protectiveness Sll1ten1ent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . • . . • • . . . • . . • . . • . . . • . . 15 x. Next Review . • . • • . . . . • . . . • . • • . • • . . . . . • . • . • • • . • . . . . • . . . • • . • • . . . . 16

FIGURE

Figure I: Site Location Map

TABLES

Table I: Chronology ofSite Events Table 2: Annual Monitoring Costs Tobie 3: Docwncnts, Datu, and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year

Review Tablc4: Other Comments on Operation, Maintenance. Monitoring, and Institutional

Controls Tobie 5: Recontrnendations and Follow-Up Actions

Acronyms Used in this Docurnent ~RAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements . ERCl.A Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

l.iabilitv Act :OPC Contaminants of Potential Concern . R Cancer Risk EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 11 Hazard Index ·s Fensibility Study ~PL National Priorities List ~YSDEC New York Stale Dcpllrtmcnl ofEnvironmentol Conservation JM&M Operation. Maintenance and Monitoring 'RP Potentially responsible pllrty 'RGs Preliminary Remediation Goals "1CLs Max.imum Contaminant Levels CE Tctrachlorocthylenc

'tVFS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ~OD Record of Decision

'PM Remcdi:tl Project Manager ~SL Rcgionol Screening Level fCE Trichlorocthylenc rvocs Total volatile organic compounds

Jg/l Micrograms per liter ;voes Semi· Volatile organic compounds voes Volatile organic compounds WQR New Yori< Department of Environmental Conservation Water

"'unlitv Rcm•lations

Executive Summary

This is the third five-year review for the Johnstown Cily Landfill Supcrfund site, located in the Town of Johnstown, Fullon County, New York. Based upon 3 review ofihc data and information. a number of recommendations and follow up ru:tions have been identified. Considering the current and reasonably anticipated site and groundwater uses, the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that lhe site-\vidc remedy protects human health in the short·tcnn. There arc no currcnl risks present at the site in eithergroundwat<.-r or soils and none OIC expected. as Jong as the site use docs not change and the cnginc<.Ted and access controls arc properly OjK-rated. monitored. and maintained. In order to cnswc the continu<..-d protcctiv<.ncss ofthe remedy relative to human health, institutional controls need to be implemented. While the implemented remedy is protective ofpublie health in the short term, additional information is needed to make an ecological protectiveness dctcrminalion. Therefore, a protectiveness dctcnnination for this site cannot be made until the additional information is obtained. It is expected that a report addendum containing a protectiveness statemcn1 \Yill be issued \vithin eighteen months of the date of this report.

ES-I

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Sito Namo (from WostoLAN): Johnstown C!!)I Lan<l=fil~I --- ­

EPA ID (from w..t•LAN}: N YD980506927 R Stato: NY CityfCounty: Town (If Johnstown/Fulton County

NPL Status: • Anal Cl Ooletod Cl OO>o<(S!>Ocify)

Remediation Status ~se all lhat ae~J'. 0 Under Construdio!!.._0 ~ting • Complete MultlpleOUs? a YES • NO Construction completion date; 9129197

ortion:s of the site In use or suitable for reuse? •

lead agency; 0 EPA • State C Tnbe OOlherFoderat_M~

Author name: George Jacob=--~ Author affiliation: EPAAuthor title: Remedial Project

Manager

Review poriod: 0 12/2005IO11/20 10

D! lct(!J of silo inspoction: 10114/2010

Type of review: 0 Post.SARA 0 Pm-SARA 0 NPL-Rcmoval ooly C NQn..NPl Remedial Action S1to 0 NPL Stat.e/Tnbe--lead

D RogioMI Discretion a Policy • Statutory

Rovicw number: Cl 1 (tlrstj Cl 21second1 • 3 (lhlnl) Cl Other (spocily

Triggering a<:tion: 0 Actual RA Ons1te Constl\ldlon at OU # _ 0 Actual RA SIM .,ou, _ 0 Con.Wctlon Complellon 0 Other l!P!!!1i'Yl Tnggetlng a~1cn date .f!!!>m WasteJ.AM: 12191200S

Duo date (five years after t.rlggerlng actfon d1to): 12/9/2010

• Previous f"we-Year Review Repor1

Does the rePon i nclude recommendatlon(s} and follow--up ac.Uon(s)? • yes no CJ ls human exposure undo-r control? • yes 0 no Is mrgratTon of contaminated groundwater stabilized? 0 yes 0 no • not yet determbled

ts tho remedy protoctJvc of tho envi ronment? 0 yes 0 no • not yet determined

ES-2

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Other Comments on Opention, Maintenance, Monitoring, and Institutional Controls

This site has ongoing ope<a1i0n, maintenance. and monltonng aclivfties as part of the solocled remedy. As was anticipated by the decision documents. these activities are subject to routine modiOcaUon and adjustment

Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions

Notwilhsland1ngthefact lhatEPA and lhe Town have communicated since lhe lastfrve-yearreviewrelatrve to drafting language 10< a restrlcilve covenant, lnsU1utlonal controls prohibiting lhc lnstallallon al 'groundwaterwells aOO to protect the integrityof thecap are stil notin place. A restrictive covenant should be drafted and filed.

Elevated cooccntrauons of iron and manganese have been detected in surtace water and groundwater sampfes. Further assessment is needed to evaiuate potential sources.

The oxceedances of iron and manganosc in sechmoot sampfos Jn Mathew Creek exceed the New YOl'k State Department or EnWonmental Conservation Sediment Screening Value severe effect levels. Add1t100ai sediment samples need tobecollected, in oonjunctJonwllh surface water data and goundwater data, lo ascettain whether tho iron and manganese sediment concentrations are assocJated With the landfill. Surface water and sediment samples should be col1ocated and collected dunng the same sampling event If lhe oontamlnallon is site-related, an ecological risk assessment la< lhe creek should be conducted.

One monitoringwell has been damaged and at least ooe well cluster could not be located. Thedamaged wel Is posilloned direcUydowngrad'8nt al a monitoring well cluster which hashighdetectionsorlead. This monitoring well needs to be repaired prior to the next sampling event A well survey should be conducted 10 identify tho locations of tho existing wells. report on the mrsscng wells, and If the missing wells are localed. test their usability.

The rcnco surrouncfITTg the perimeter ofthe landfill has a breach on the south side attributable to al -terrain vehicle access; addrtlooally, It has been damaged by hay bales and a fallen ~ee In several places. The fence damages and breaches need to rlXed and maintained regularly.

The landfill cap was eroded in several places. While repairs have been made, the cap must continue to be maintatoed in order to prevent future degradation

Protectiveness Statement

A protectiveness det.e«ninauon for this site cannot be made until additional informallOll is obtained It is expected that a report addendum containing a protectiveness statement will be issued within eighteen months of lhe dateor this repon.

ES-3

FIVE-YEAR R£ VT£\V REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the third five-year review for the Johnstown City Landfill site, located in the Town of Johnstown, Fulton County, New York. This five-year review was conducted by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM) George Jacob. The review was conducted pursuant to Section 121 (c) ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. '9601 et seq. (CERCLA) and 40 CFR 300.430(1)(4Xii) and in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-0JB·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 ofthe site file.

ln accordance with Section l .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 December 9, 2005.

Based upon this 6vc-yc:11r review, it has been determined that a protectiveness detennination for this site cannot be made until additional information is obtained. It is expected that a report addendum containingnprotectiveness stlltcment will be issued within eighteen months ofthe date ofthis report.

II. SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table l (attached) summam.c ~1e site-related events from discovery to construction completion.

111. BACKGROUND

Site 11ocation

The Johnstown City Landfill is a municipally-operated, unlined landfill situated in the Town of Johnstown, FUiton County. New York . TI1csite is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest ofthe City ofJohnstown and 1.75 miles west ofthe City ofGloversville. See Figure I

The site is generally bordered by low density residential areas along West Fulton Street Extension to the north and mixed wooded and agricultural lands to the east. south nnd wesL Approximately IO homes arc located within 1,000 feet of the site and approximately 95 homes arc located within one mile downgradient of the site. All of these homes had private wells before the public water supply was extended to them as part ofthe selcctcd remedy.

Phvsieal Characteristics

The 34-acrc lnndfill consists of cwo, generally Oat terraces. A remnant of a pit once used as a demolition debris nnd metals disposal area, approximately 30 feet deep, exists on the westward side of the landfill at the base ofa sleep ridge.

Surfuce·water drainage in the vicinity ofthe landfill nows g~-ncrnlly to the southeast. Surface waters flow from the upland areas, nonh of the site, via inlcrmittcnl drainage ways toward the south· southeast. The primary surfaCC..\\•atcr feature in chc immedintc vicinity of the landfill is Molhc\v Creek. The headwaters ofMathew Creek (LaGrange Springs) arc located approximately 1,000 feet southeast ofthe site. Mathew Creek Oows southeasterly until it converges with llnll Creek prior to discharging into Cayaduua Creek. The flow of Mathew Creek is interrupted by a mnn-mndc pond (Hulb<'ft's Pond) before it converges \vith Hall Creek. Cayadutta Creek ultimately discharges to the MohU\Yk River.

LaGrange Grovel Pit, located approximately I 00 feel east of the eastern margin of the landfill, receives surface runoff from bill slopes in its immediate vicinity and occasional ephemeral runoff from the landfill surface. E«epl for the shon -lived discharges 10 LaGrange Gravel Pit. there is no surfuce waler runoff from the landfill. There is no surface waler runoff from LaGrange Gravel PiL

Wetlands arc associated with LaGmnge Springs and Mathew Creek.

Si1c G·eoloPv/1-l vdrogeology

Two aquifers exist beneath the Johnstown City Landfill. The upper (overburden) aquifer flows through till. sand and gravel, and flows generally toward the south and southeast from the landfill following surface drainage pallcms. Groundwater in the overburden and shallow bedrock aquifers nppcars to behydraulically connected down gradient from the site and lo discharge into the wc~ands area of LaGrange Springs and Mathew Creek located southeast of the site. In contrast to the groundwater now pauern in the shallow water table. deep (bedrock) groundwater gcnemlly flows from west to cast across the site.

The immediate area of the landfill is underlain by the Canojoharic Shale, a mid-Ordovician age, calcarious shale with occasional pyrite lobes. The bedrock was found 10 be mildly fractured in the upper 20 feel of the unit Depth to bedrock ranges across the site from about 30 feel 10 120 feel.

Land and Resource Use

The area surrounding the site consists of low density residential areas 10 the nonh. and mixed wooded and ngrieullural lnnds to the cast, south and wesL The landfill is located in a former gravel borrow pit.

2

Ult tory oCContan1ination

The landfill was used as an open refuse disposal fociLity from 1947 to 1960 before being convened to a sanilllry landfill. The landlill accepted industrial wastes from local tanneries ond textile plants until April 1979, and sludge from the Gloversville-Johnstown Joint Sewage Treatment Plant from 1973 to April 1979. Landfill operations ccosed in June 1989. Much of the tannery wastes were disposed ofas chromium-treated hide trimmings and other materials. Sewage sludge was disposed of in open piles at a rate of approximately 20,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge contained concentrations ofchromium, iron, and lead. There are no reoords available which detail the amount of industrial wastes accepted by the landfill.

lnilial Rrsnonsc;

On June 10. 1986. the Johnstown City Landfill site was placed on theSuperfund National Priorities List.

Oo June 5. 1987. tlte S1a1c of New York filed suit against the City of Johnstown, the Gloversville/Johnstown Joint Sewer Board. Bruce Miller Trucking Company. and about a dozen waste generators. Several ofthe defendants subsequently impleaded approximaiely 52 third-pany defendants. including additional generators, transponcrs. and a number ofarea municipalities. When the defendants declined to fund a remedial inves1iga1ion and feasibility study (Rl/FS), the State and the Ciiy ofJohnstown cn1ercd in10 an interim conscn1 order, which was opprovod by the l'cdcral Coun on October 4, 1988. Under the 1erms oflhe inierim order. the Ci1yagreed 10 conduct an Rl/FS.

Basis for ·rakjng t\sti211

Based upon the results ofthe RI, which was carried out bcrwcen June 1989 and March 1992, it was dciennincd thal sire soils were contamina1cd wilh volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organiccompounds(SVOCs), metals, and pesticides. VOCs, SVOCs, and metals wercde1ected in downgradicnl monitoring wells. voes,svocs, and inorganic compounds were found in surface water samples collected from Mothew Creek. Sediment contamination in Ma1hcw Creek included metals. SVOCs, and pesticides.

As pan of the R~ a human health risk assessmcnl was conducted. Under the current land-use conditions, the cumulative cancer risk for all recep1ors cvalua1ed (i.e., adults, }'OUths, children) was 6 x Io-'. which was within EPA's acceptable cancer risk range of I()"' IO IO'". The overwhelming contribution to this risk was aunou1ablc to residents ingesting cootarnina1cd groundwater. However, under future land-use conditions, which assumed !bat the contaminated groundwa1cr beneath the landfill migra1cd to a residential receptor. a cancer risk of2 xlO" was found for the adult receptor. This risk. which slightly exceeds the aecep1able cancer range, is attribu1able to the ingestion of groundwa1er, with beryllium accounting for most ofthe risk.

3

IV. REl\IE:DIAL ACTIONS

Remedy Selec1io9

Based upon the rcsulis of the RJ/FS, on March 31, 1993, n Record of Decision (ROD) was signed, selecting as 1he rcmedy for the sile1

:

Excnva1ion of the LnGrnnge Gravel Pil st-dimen1s and placing the excava1cd ma1erials on the existing landfill (lhe pi1 will be tilled with clean fill so tl1a1 ii may be used BS an infiltration basin and/or stonn\VDlt.-r collection basin)~

• Regrading and compacting the landfill mound to provide a s1able foundation for placement ofthe various layers ofthe cap and 10 promote rapid runoff;

• Cons1ruction ofa multilayer closure cap (lmpenncablemcmbrane, 12 inches ofsand, and 12 inches of1opsoil) over the landfill mound and cxcava1ed scdimenlS as per New York Slate 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations. The cap, by n:ducing leachate gt"!Wration, will ac110 improve 1he groundwa1er qualily in the upper (overburden). lower (bedrock) aquifers, uod surface-waler quality in Mathew Creek through na1ural attenuation orcontaminants:

Expansion ofthe Johnslown Cily waler-supply sys1cm 10 provide potable wa1<-r to all pri'••le water •"Upplies po1cn1ially impac1cd by the landfill. Providing city wa1er will require the extension of the Cily's waler lines and cons1ruc1ion of a boos1er pump sLation~

Imposition ofpropeny deed rcs1rictions by the appropriaie slme or local au1hori1ics lo prcvenl the ins1alla1ion of drinking waler wells al the si1e. and rcs1ric1 ac1ivi1ies 1ha1 could affect the in1egrity oflhc cap;

Erection ofapproxima1cly6.SOO feel ofconven1ional chain-link fencing surrounding 1he entire landfill mound, with placemcn1 of appropria1c wanting signs; and

Reinedial nction objectives (RAOs) arc specific goals 10 protect human health and lhe environment These objectives arc based 011 available infonnation, standnrds1 and risk-ba.scd levels cstublishcd in I.be risk assessment. 111c RAOs ror 1hc site that were identified in 1he ROD include preventing human and animal contact with coo1amina1ed soil rrom the landfill surface: preventing erosion of conll.'lmin1,ucd surface soil through surface-waler runoff; minimizing the infiltration of minfnll or snow melt into the landfill, thus. reducing the qu4n1ity of water pcrcolnting through the landfill materials and leaching out contaminnnts; mitigating the off-site migration of contnminatcxl groundwater, prevc:nung unacceptable exposure to off-site contaminated ground \YOter. restoring groundwa1cr quality to levels which do not cxcce<l slate or federal dnnking·\\'atcr standards: preventing ingestion ofon-site ground"<atcr; control generation and prevent m1gn11ion ofsubsurface landfill gas; and preventing unacc.::epLnble exposure to vap0rs from the landfill.

4

lmplcmcnllltionofa public awareness program to ensure that thenearby residents arc familiar with all aspects ofthe response action.

The ROD also indicated that the effectiveness ofthe landfill cap would be evaluated through post-construction monitoring of groundwater aod surlllcc water quality. The evaluation would be conducted within five years following initiation ofconstruction ofthe landfill cap, and at any time as needed thereafter, during the long-term monitoring ofthe site. Should the monitoring results indicate that either groundwater quality in the uppcr(ovcrburdcn) aquifer or the lower (bedrock} aquifer, or surface water quality in Mathew Creek. is not being restored to acceptable levels ,through naturnl attenuation because of reduced leachate generation. the following would be implemented:

Extraction ofcontaminated groundwater from either of the aquifers. as necessary;

Treatment ofgroundwater by a treatment system located permanently on-site that would use physical/chemical processes such as pH adjustment, chemical prec1pitation, and carbon adsorption1 to remove inorganic and volatile organic contaminants; and

Dischargeoftreated groundwater by returning it to the aquifer via percolation ponds or injection \vells1 or by discharging it to a stream. the nearest bciag Mathc\v Creek.

Rcmcd v Implementation

LnndQll Closure

TheTown ofJohnstown retained Malcolm Pirnie to conduct the remedial design, obtain bids for the landGll closure. and provide construction administration and resident engineering. The contract for the constrUction ofthe City ofJohnstown's landfill closure was competitively bid and awarded to Delaney Construction Corporation ofMayfield, New York on October 17, 1995.

During December 1995 and January 1996, Delaney Construction SCI up the support facilities, installed the perimeter site access controls, determined the limits of the waste, completed the majority of waste relocation and placed the intennediatc cover where required. Delancy Construction was forced to suspend the waste relocation activities in January 1996 due to inclement weather conditions. When the project resumed in May 1996, the remaining portion of the waste relocation activities were completed and the separation fabric. gas vent material.. 60-miJ geomcmbrane, barrier protection material, and topsoil were placed and the site was seeded. Construction was completed in November 1996.

5

Waterline Extension

A contract for the construction oflhe City ofJohnstown's waterline extension 10 96 homes and the nearby Pine Tree Rine Club was competitively bid and swarded to Syracuse Constructors of Syracuse. New York on June 26, 1996. The construction oflhc waterline began on September 30. 1996 and was completed on Moy, 21. 1997.

Institutional Controls l1nplementatioo

The ROD called for the imposition of property deed restrictions to prevent the installation of drinking water wells at the site and to restrict activities which could affect the integrity of the cap. Since the site property is mt1nicipally-owncd, the New York State Departmelll of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)has not reqt1ired the Town to obtain a propeny deed restriction. Nonetheless, NYSDEC and EPA agree ihat institt1tional controls need to be implemented at ihe pr..:sent lime.

Notwitl1standing the litct that EPA and the Town have communicated since ihe last five-year review relative to drafting language for a restrictive co''cnant., institutional contt0ls prohibiting 1he installation ofgroundwater wells and to protect the inic-grity of the cup arc still not in place. h is anticipated that a restrictive covenant will be in plaec by November 201 l.

Sys1em Opcrations(Operation and ~Jaintcnancc/f\1onitorjng

An Operation and Maintenance Manual, covcnng post-landfill cap construction inspection and maintenance procedures, was approved by NYSDEC as part ofthe remedial design. The Opcrauon nnd Maintenance Manual contains ihe procedures for inspecting and evaluating the landfill cap, monitoring of groundwate< quality in ihc immediate perimeter of the landfill, and long-tcnn monitoring of downgradient groundwater wells. Repairs are to be made to the cap and drainage systc.ms. as necessary, to control the effects ofsettling, subsidence, erosion, or other events that might interfere wiih the performance ofihe n.mcdy.

The Operation and Maintenance Manual requires that the site be inspected on a quarterly basis as follows:

The landfill cap for signs of erosion, excessive senlement, surface water ponding, seedling growih, and stressed vegetation;

The site for any vec1ors and report damage;

The ground,vut<.--r monitoring wells for <.'"USC: of locating, operation of locks. damage/vandalism, and the condition of ihe surface seals:

The site access gates and fence for operational locks, vandalism, and damage;

6

• The access roads for ruts, puddles, and drivabilily; and

The site for debris. litter. and/or waste.

During the interview. it was lcamed that the site is inspected annually. rather than quarterly, as required by the Operation and Maintenance Manual. On a quarterly basis, a trained professional should inspect the site. A rcpon should be included as a supplement to the groundwater monitoring rcpon to address the inspection details and the status ofany issues/concerns encountered.

Groundwater and surface water monitoring at the site was performed on a quanerly basis beginning in 1996; ground,vatcr and surface \V&tcr samples were analyLcd for ba~clinc and routine p3rameters in accordance with 6 NYCRR Pan 360-2. I I (dX6). In 1999. NYSDEC approved a revision ofthe environmental monitoring schedule from quanerly monitoring to scmiannual ·monitoring. While ground,vntcr and surfnee \Yatersamples arc rt.1>0rtcdly nnalyLed for baseline and routine pammcters. not nil parameters are being rcponed.

Air quality monitoring using aThenno Electron Innova 4 Gas Monitor is conducted at 1.he peri1neter ofthe landfill on an annual basis in conjunc1ion \\rith the site inspections (as \Vas noted above. the site is inspected annually, rather than quarterly. as required by the Operation and Maintenance Manual). In addition. the monitoring repons do not include air quality data. Air quality monitoring should be conducted con>~stent with the requirements of the Operation and Maintenance Manual. Air quality monitoring results should be reported as a supplement to the groundwater monitoring rcpon.

The inspcct·ions, maintenance. sa1npling, monitoring. data evaluation, and reporting costs are approximately S65,000 on an annual basis; these costs are broken down in Table 2 (attached).

V. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT

The second five-year review for this site. which was approved on December 9, 2005, determined that the impkrrwnted actions at the site protected human health and the environment in the short term; however, in order for the site to be protective in the long term. institutional controls need to be implemented. There were no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none were expected, as long as the site use did not change and the engineered and access controls that were in place continued 10 be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. The groundwater was not being utilized at the site at that time and it \Vas concluded that it \V3S aot anticipated thal

groundwater would be used until groundwater standards are achieved.

The second five-year review for this site noted that the ROD called for the implcmcn1ation of a propcnyrcstrictivccovennnt10 prevent the i.llS1allation ofdrinking water wells at the site and restrict activities which could affect the integrity of the cap. EPA is currently working with the Town to place restrictions on the landfill property.

7

Historically. the ecological concerns associnted with the site were related 10 the impact oflnndftll oontaminunts on Mruhew Creek. In order to dc1crminc whcthc-r the risks were properly addressed by capping the landfill, in the first five-ycarrc\'iew, it was recommended that a biological monitoring plan be es1ablisbcd to de1ermine whether improvement in lhe biological community ofthe creek was observed. A biological quality study was completed by the City's consuhnnl in August 2004. The results of the study indica1cd grca1er impact associated with the sample location at the toe of tlle landfill. However. as there were seveflll limitations associated wilh this study, it concluded !hat i1 was unclear whether or not there are "real" impacts associated with leachate seeping from the landfill. Accordingly, the S<'Cond five-year review called for the collection ofsediment samples in the \VCtland areas associated \Vilh Marnc,v Creek to ensure that landfill contaminants \vcrc not impac1ing these areas. Sediment sampling was conducted at six locations associated wilh 1he si1e in 2006. Data were anal.wed for inorganics, total organic c-Jrbon (TOC}. and grain size.

VI. FIVE-YEAR REYIE\V PROCESS

t\dministrarivc Con.-poncnts

The five-ye-Jr review 1eam consisted ofGeorgeJacob(RPM), Grant Anderson (hydrogeologist), Julie Mc.Pherson (humnn health risk assessor}, Urszula Filipowi17, (human health risk assessor}. nnd Mindy Pensuk (ecological risk USS<:SSOr, Biological Technical Assistance Group).

Con1n1unicy Jnvolvcntcnl

The EPA Community Involvement Coordinator for 1heJohns1own Cily Landfill site, Jessica Sophia Kelley, published a notice in the Gloversville leader Herold. a local newspaper, on October 9. 201 O. no1ifying ~1e communityoflhe ini1ia1ion ofthe five-year review process. The notice indicated that EPA would be conducting a five-year review of1he sile to ensure that the site is pro1cetivc ofpublic health nnd the environment and that the implemented components ofthe remedy arc functionins as designed. It \Vas also indicated that once the fi\'O·year rcvie\v is completed, the results \vo uld be made available in the local site reposi1ory. In addition. the notice included the RPM's address and telephone number for questions related to the five-year review process of 1he Johnslown City Landfill site. No comments or questions were received.

Ooc.u n1ent ltcvie\v

l11c documc.."nts, data. and infonnation which \vcrc rcvie\vcd in completing the five-year rcvicv.•are summarized in Tobie 3 (auached).

Data Revie\V

Surraec water samples have been collected in the past five years !Tom three surface locations: SW-2 (background): SW-I (closest to the landfill perimeter); and SW-3 (downgrodicnt). Historically, iron and manganese exceedanccs were detected in all surface waler samples including the background.

8

During the review pcnod, iron exceeded the NYSDEC Class GA Siandard of 300 micrograms per liter (u!V'L) at the background sample location (SW-2). with concentrations ranging &om 304 uWL to 2.660 ug!L

From 2005 through 2009, iron and manganese concentrations at SW-I were consistently above standards. ranging from 1,070 u!V'L to 507,000 u!V'Land from 408 uWL to 1,130 uWL (the standard for manganese is 300 ug!L), respectively. During this period, cadmium concentrations exceeded the standard of 5 ugfL (maximum concentration of33.2 u!V'L) at this location in 2008 and 2009. The concentrations of barium, cobalt, lead, aickel, selenium. and thallium all met the standards at this location from 2005 to 2009. During the 2010 sampling event, however, the concentrations ofiron and manganese increased significantly to 2,200,000 ug!Land 37,400 ug!L, respectively. In addition, the concentrations ofbarium. "'1dmium, cobalt. lead. nickel, selenium, and th.illlium also exceeded their standards.

During lhe review p<'fiod, oaly iron exceeded its standard (ranging from 263 uWL to 1,250 ug/L) al thedowngradient sample location. Thedatll collected from sampling point SW-3 suggests that the contaminalinn has not migrated funhcr downstreain. The iron concentrations deteclcd al this location arc consistent with background concentrations and are not expected to affect the protectiveness ofthe remedy. Continued monitoring is necessary to ensure that the metals detected in the 2010 sampling event are not moving furtherdowngradient (toward S\V-3).

Based upon the data. it has been concluded that the SW-I iron and manganese concentrations arc not within a typical range associated with natural variability ofthese contaminants in groundwater (e.g .• within nn order ofmagnitude) nnd it appears that the concentrations ofthese contaminants at S\V-1, which is closest 10 the landfill, may be influenced by possible leachate discharge. Funher assessment is needed to evaluate a potential source or these metals.

During the past five years, there were two sampling events \vith VOCsdetections in the groundwater that were marginally above NYSDEC's Class GA Groundwater standards. In July 2006, benzene was detected nbove the New York groundwater standard of l ug!L in MW-JS (1.3 u!V'L). In the October 2008 sampling even~ methylene chloride was dctected in MW-4S at a concentration of6.3 ugfL which is above the New York standard of5 ugfL These excecdnnces werercponcd only once during the past 5 years ofsampling. So that trends can be analy-l.Cd. a full scan ofVOCs needs to be analyzed for all oflhe monitoring wells. In addition. be<:ausc the laboratory's detection limits for several voes \Vere greater than the State standard, it is unknO\Vn \Vhclher these constituents arc present in the wells, and i r present, whether the levels arc above or below lhc standards.

Iron and manganese have been detected above the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater stllndard of300 uWL within the past 5 years ofsampling (maximum concentrations or79,900 uWL and 9,370 ug/L, respectively). These concentrations are higher than background concentrations (13,200 u!V'L and 2.440 ug/L being the highest background well values for iron and man81UJesc, respectively). Since the concentrations arc higher than background. funhcr assessment is needed to evaluate any potential source.

9

Historically, monitoring well MW-3S. which is locau:d at the footprint of the landfill, has had the greatest detected levels of lead when compared to the othcr monitoring wells. Sampling results continue lo indicate detections oflead above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) (15 ug/1) in every sampling event from 2005 to 2010, with a maximum dctccted conccnuation of2,680 ug/1 in October 2008 (although the levels are still above MCLs, lead conccnuations have decreased since 2008). Samples collected in July 2010 were analyzed filtored and unfiltered; the filtered sample analyses indicated no exceedances. In addition lo leod e.•ceedances. the followingcxceedances were detected during the October 2008 sampling event: chromium 658 ug/L (NYSDEC standard is 50 ug/L). nickel 2,300 ug/L (NYDEC standard is I 00 ug/L) and copper 268 ug/L (NYSDEC SIA!ldard is 200 ug/L). Altl1ough these constituents were tested on an annual basis, there were no reported cxce<ldances since the 2008 sampling event. Lead exceedances of22.8 ug/L in July2006 and 448 ug/L in December 2007 were rcponed in monitoring well MW-3M. These e.•ceedunces were SPOradic within the 5 years of sampling, and an order of magnitude less than the concentration of lead found in the shallow groundwatcr wells in the same location. A comparison or lead cxceedances in the inlermediate and deep monitoring wells (MW-3M and MW-30) as compared with the shallow monitoring well (MW-3S) indicates lead contamination is not likely migrating 10

dct.1'cr groundwater at this location. It is unknown whether the lead contan1ination in MW-JS has migrated forther downgradicn~ since tlte closest downgrndient monitoring well has been damaged since 2007. During the September 2007 sampling, selenium was detected above the 10 ug/L standard in several monitoring wells (ranging from 11.2 ug/1to18.1 ug/L). These detections were most likely not site-related, since selenium was also detected in the upgradient well, MW-6S at 16.5 ug/L. Regional screening levels {RSL) are chemica.1-speci fie human health-based screening values equivalent to a cancer risk or I x 1O" or a ha7.ard index (Iii) or I. The maximum detectod scknium concentration did not exceed its respective RSL and, therefore. is not of concern at this time. Furthermore, selenium c.~cccdanccsh3ve not been sho\vn to occur duringanyothe:r sampling event. Sporadic groundwater cxceedances of several other metals, including n1ercury. silver. cadmium, chromium, and nickel, were detected during the past five years. These concentrations, when compared to their chernical-speci6c RSLs, did not exceed the una='Plable cancer risk range or HI.

Samples that were collected in 2010 were analy1:ed both filtered and unfiltered. The fi11ered sample analyses indicated no cxceedances. Analy-Ling filtered and unfiltered samples may be usefol in bener understanding true groundwater and surface water contaminant conditions.

In order to address concerns raised from the "Biological Quality Study" conducted in 2004, sediment sampling was conducted at six locations associated \Yith the site in 2006. Data \V<..TC analyLcd for inorganics, TOC, and grain size. Inorganic data were screened against NYSDEC's Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sedimen1s. Overall, tbc conccnlrntions of ioorganies in sediments appear to be much lower in comparison to the RI. The results orthe 2006 sampling event do not include arsenic and lead concentrations. No details arc provided regarding why theseanalytes \Vere not included. Therefore, it is unclear \Vhether these inorganics arc present nt ooncentmtions orconcern. Cadmium values are all "U"qualified, indicating that this compound was not detected. For chromium, copper, and mercury, all values are below NYSDEC Sediment Criteria Guidance Values. Theonlyexccedanceofiron and manganese was at Mathew Crcek-2, and these exceedances were for the severe effect levels. There was one exeeedancc each for nickel (Mathew Creek -1) and

10

zi11c (Mathew Crcck-3), and these exccednnccs were for the lower effect levels. Since iron and manganese exceednnccs \Ycrcdctected in background surface \Yater samples, il is recommended 1hat additional sediment samples be ccllccted in conjunction with surfilce water data and groundwater data lo ascenain whether these concentrations are associated with the landfill. Thesurfilce water and sediment samples should be collocated and collected during the same sampling event. If the contamination is site-related, an ecological risk as=ment for the creek should be conducted.

Fivc-' 'ear Revie\V Site lnspeetion

On October 14. 2010, a fivc-ycor review-related site inspection wa.< conducted by George Jacob. Grant Anderson, Julie McPherson, and Urszula Filip0wicz. Also present at the site inspection were Chad Konz, City Engineer, Town ofJohnstown, and Greg Handley, NYSOEC project manager.

During the fivc--)'ear review site inspection, it was observed I.hat \Vhile there were no indicat,ions of burrowing animals or woody vegetation that could compromise the cap. the presence ofall-terrain vehicle (ATV) tracks outside the fence and on the cap pose a potential threat lo the landfill cap. In addition, along the perimeter ofthe landfill cap, sand from the cap has escaped through fissures. ln addition, the fence surrounding the perimeter ofthe landfill has been damaged in two places by hay bales' that have rolled off ofthe cap, a tree has fallen onto the fence compromising its integrity. and there is u breach in the fence on the south side ofthe landfill attributable to A TV access (tracks were apparent from the breach leading onto landfill}. Additionally. the monitoring wells were not properly locked, several monitoring wells could not be located, and monitoring well MW-9S has ~damaged by fann equipment.

lntc rvic\\]

An interview was conducted on October 14. 2010 with Mr. Konz for this review. During the interview, it was learned that the site is inspected annually, rather than quarterly, as required by the Operation and Maintenance Manual.

Institutional Controls Verification

Since the site property is municipally-mvned, NYSDEC has not required the County to obtain a property deed restriction. Nonetheless, NYSDEC and EPA agree that institutional controls need to be implemented at the present time.

01hcr Comn1co1s on Operation, \\•taintenunsc. Monitoring. and ln! titutionttl Controls

Table 4 (auached) summarizes several observations and offers suggestions to resolve the issues.

: The Town currcnll)' han·ests hay that grows on top orthe land.ft.I!.

I I

VI. TECHNICAL ASSESS!l>fENT

Question A: ls 1/1e re111edyfu11ctio11i11g as i11te11ded by tire decisio11 doc11n1e111s?

The 1993 ROD called for the excavation of the LaGronge Gravel Pit sediments and placing the excavated material on the existing landfill. constructing a multilayer closure cap over the landfill mound and excavated sediments as per New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations, c.'pansion of the Johnstown City water-supply system 10 provide potable water 10 all private water suppLlcs potentially impacted by the landfill. erection ofa chain link fence surrounding the entire landfill, and institutional controls. These measures serve 10 minimize the potential for exposure to any contaminants that may remain at the site. Installation ofthe cap eliminated 1he exposure pathway to site-related con1aminan1s via the soil exposure pathway. Currently, any cons1iruents present in lhe do\vngrndient ground\\'ater do not impact residents. since the municipal \Yater supply line \Vas extended to all of the potentially impacted residences.

The cap and fence arc checked annually to ensure the integrity of both is maintained. Based upon the inspection of the site, there are concerns "ith regard 10 the functionality ofthe landfill cap and fence. The landfill cap shows signs oferosion in several places and the fence has been repeatedly damaged by trespassers, thus, allowing access to the landfill. FurtbCJ1J1orc, the ROD required pos1­construeLion monitoring ofthe groundwater and surface water quality to ensure the effectiveness of the landfill cap. While groundwaterand surface water data has been collected for the past five years, somedntn gaps nrc apparent due 10 monitoring well damage and groundwn1cr samples have not been consistently analytcd for the full scan of analytcs. Spor.idie cxceedances of consti1ucn1s were detected in both surfuce and groundwater samples.

lbe ROD called for the imposition of property do"<:d restrictions to prevent the installaLion of drinking wato'I' wells at the site and restrict activities. wbich could affect the in1egri1y of the cap. While the site property is municipally owned, thc're ore no current plans to develop it. A rcslric1ivc covenant preventing activities 1ha1 would disturb the ""P and prohibit the installation ofdrinking water wells need to bedrafted and filed.

Q11os1;011 B: Are the exposure assunrptions, toxic1ry data. clea1n1p levels. t1nd remedial action objec1;ves 11sed at t/1e tirne ofremed>• selection still valid?

There have been no physical changes 10 the site that would adversely affect the protectiveness ofthe remedy. The majority of the exposure assumptions and pathways evaluated in the Baseline Risk Assessment remain valid. Even though, some exposure assumptions have changed and several exposure pathways were not evaluated, this is not expected to affect the remedy.

While the RAOsused u1 the timcofremedyselcc1ion(scc footnote I. above)nrestill valid, 1heyhave not nil been achieved.

While institutional controls are not curremly in place, since the site property is municipally owned, it is not anticipa1.ed that groundwater use on-site is likely to occur in 1he short-term.

12

Soil vapor intrusion is evaluated when soils and/or groundwater are kno\vn or suspeclcd to contain VOCs. Sporadic cxceedances of benzene and methylene chloride above the NYSDEC Class GA Groundwater Standards have been rcponed in tbe last five year.;. Additionally, the VOCs that were nagged as "not detected," but above their chemical specific groundwater standards, were also evaluated. These included I ,2-dibromo-3-cbloropropanc, I,1,2-trichlorocthane, and nc:rylonitrile. t\ comparison Ofmaximum groundwater VQC CQncentntliOnS \Yith ground\V3tet values provided in the OSWER D1·afi Guidance for £\>a/ua1ing tire Vapor lnirusion to Indoor Air Path.,.ay /rom Groundwater andSoils (November 2002) indicate that groundwater contaminant coocentnnions arc currently within the acceptable risk range. Currently, there are no buildings in lhe vicinity of the landfill. Therefore. a vapor iOtrusion investigation is not necCMary nl this time.

Question C: Hasanyotl1er inforntarion conic ro light t/rar could call inLo question r/1eprotectiveness oflire remedy?

During the five-year review site inspection, ATV tracks were observed outside lhe fence aod on the cap; use ofATVs on the landfill could adversely impact the integrity ofthe landfill cap. In addition, aloog the perimeter of the landfill cap, sand from the cap has escaped through fissures. In addition, the fence surrounding the perimeter ofthe landfill has been damaged by hay bales' that have roll<-<l offofthe cap in two places, a tree has fallen onto the fence compromising its integrity, and there is a breach in the fence on the south side of the landfill attnl>utablc to A TV access (tracks were apparent from the breach leading onto landfill). Additionally, the monitoring wells were not properly locked, several monitoring wells could not be located, and a monitoring well has been damaged.

Technical Asscs:s mcnt S umman'

Based upon the results ofthe fivc-}'Car review. it has been concluded that:

• Ruts and cap erosion (soil and sand) were presem in lhe cap along the fence line and on top ofthe landfill due to ATV activity(thc damage was subsequently repaired);

• Along the perimeterofthe landfill cap, sand from the cap has escaped through the fissures noted above;

• The fence surrounding the perimeterofthe landfill has been damaged in two places by hay bales that have rolled off of the cap. a tree has fallen onto the fence compromising its integrity. and there is a breach in lhe fence on the south sideofthe landfill attributable to ATV access;

The monitoring wells were not all properly capped and Jocked;

• The Town curren1ly barvcs1s bay that grows on top of the landfill.

13

• Monitoring well MW-9S has been damaged by fann equipment:

Several monitoring wells oould not be IC>Cated, and in one case (the MW-2 cluster), it appears that the entire area has been scraped with a bulldozer:

• The fence is oompromised in multiple locations by fallen trees, rolling hay bales, and ATVs;

There is evidence ofVlllldalism and irespassing. as the west and south side gates are broken; and

,. The remedy hns prcverued residents from drinking containinatcd ground\vatcr.

The fence and gates must oontinuc to be vigorously maintained. The gated entrance on the west side ofthe landfill might benefit from a ooncrctc Jersey barrier. The damaged monitoring well needs to be replaced. It is also recommended that concrete bollards be placed around the wells that ore close to cultivated fields so that 1his type of damage can be avoided in 1he future. All monitoring wells should have working caps nnd locks need to be placed on the wells where the locks arc missing. The wells should be capped and locked at nil times. It is further recommended that nll of!he moni1oring wells be iospcctcd for operational locks, damage, and vandalism ooncurrent wilh lhc sampling ofthe monitoring wells.

To ensure the in1egrity ofthe cap is maintained. u trained engineer skilled in perfonning inspections should examine 1he cap qunncrly nnd provide an inspection rc-pon to EPA. This insp<.-etion should include an examination of the entire cap, including a walk around the outside perimeter of the landfill.

Because of the questions about monitoring well integrity and existence, a well survey should be conducted. In addition to identifying the locations ofthe existing wells, the survey should rcpon on the missing wells and ifthey arc located, the wells should be iested to detennine whether they are functional. It is also recommended that a raised Oag be attached to each monitoring well in order to prevent ahem from being damaged.

The ROD called for an evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe landfill cap through post-<:<>nstrUction monitoring ofgroundwater and surfoc<: water quality. Should the monitoring results indicate that eitherground\vatcr quality in the overburden or bedrock aquifer, or surface \Valer quality in Mathc\v Creek is not beiagrcstored to acceptable levels by rc-duced leachate generation, funheractions would be taken. In the first 5-year review in 2000, it was noted that since only lhree and a hat ryears ofon­sitc groundwater and surface water data had been generated since the constn.1ction of the cap, additional data would be needed to establish whether groundwater contaminant levels arc being reduced as expected, and if any additional measures were nc-edc-d. Therefore, lhc first five-ye.., review concluded 1hat while the remedy at the site was implemented in accordance with the ROD and was protective ofhuman health, the contingency groundwater remedy could not be eliminated from consideration at that time and protection of the environment had not been fully established.

14

Continued groundwater and environmental monitoring was recommended. In the second live-year review in 2005. it was concluded that based upon a review ofthe surface and groundwater data that were collected since May 1996, the landfill cap in combination ' vilh natural attenuation was restoring groundwater and surface water quality. Therefore, groundwater extraction and treatment was determined not to be necessary at that time. Depending upon the results of the sampling stemming from the recommendations contained in this five-year review report, however. it may be necessary to reassess this conclusion.

VII. ISSUES, RECOMMENDATIONS, ANO FOLLO\V-UPACTIONS

Table 5 (auached) contains recommendations and follow-up actions that should ensure long-term protectiveness.

The selected remedy has not been fully implemented. Specifically. the inscitutional controls deemed necessary to prevent the withdrawal and use of groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill and to restrict activities that could affect the integrity of the cap have not been put into place. This site cannot be deleted from the National Priorities List until the inscitutional controls are in place and the remedial action objectives are achieved.

This repon did not identify any issucormakeany recommendation for the protection ofpublic health that was not included oranticipated by the site decision documents. The report, however, does make recommendations related tO the protection of the cnvironmenL

VII I. PROTECTIVENESS STA TEl\fENT

A proteclivcnessdctcnnination for this site cannot be made until additional information is obtained. It is ellpected that a rcpon addendum containing a protectiveness statement will be issued within eighteen mond1S of the date ofthis repon.

15

IX. NEXT REVlE\V

Since hazardous substances, pollutants or contmninanls remain nt the Johnstown City Landfill site which do not allow for unlimited use or unrcstricwd exposure, in accordance with 40 CFR 300.430 (I) (4J(ii). the remedial action for the siteshall be reviewed no IC8Sol\cn than every five years. EPA will conduct another five-year review wi~tin five years of the date oflhis report.

Approved:

/~/8)0Date

16

-.) =

08-lOA..0.06-106 ....MW-100

0

SCAU: IN FEET

350 700

.i.t.1W- 8S MW- 80'

~w-us UW-110

ww-iss..._T MW-150

Figure I: Site Location Map Johnstown City Landfill Sile

Table I: Chronolo•v ofSite £,·ents

Event Daters)

Onemtion of landfill 1947-1989

State of New York filed suit against the City of JohnstO\VO, the 1987 Gloversville/Johnstown Joint Sewer Board, Bruce Miller Trucking Company, and about a dozl.'11 "'astc ~encrators

site placed on Nnlional Priorities List 1986

Nc'v York Stnte and the City of Johns1o'vn enter into an interim consen1 order 1988 under \vhich the City agrees to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

Remedial lnvcsti2a1ion and Feasibilitv Studv 1988-1993

Record of Decision 1993

Remedial Desil!ll 1994- 1995

Remedial Action 1995- 1997

Prelin1ini:trv site Close·Out llel'V'lrt 1997

First Five-Year Review Conducted 2000

Second Five-Yenr Revie'v Conducted 2005

Table 2: Annual Ooc,.arion, I\·Jaintcnnncc,, and Monitorine. Costs

Activitv

Sampling and analysis (Quartcrly)/Dala Evaluation and Ro-portinl!

Groundwater Monitorin._ Samplin11 and Analvsis

Data Manaaemem and Reoortin11

Site lns-rionfMaintenance

Toto/ Esrimated Cost

Cost oer Y car

S25,00

S25.00

S I0,00

ss.oo

S65.000

T-1

i ·able J: Oocurncnts:, Data, ""d lnforn1ation Rc,1icvvcd in Completing the Five-Year Re\'iC\\'

Document Title. Author Submittal Date Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Thenno Consuhing 1993 En•inccrs Record or Decision, EPA 1993 Final Design Report, Johns1own City Landfill Closure. Cily or 1995 Johnstown. New York, Malcolm Pirnie Operation and Main1cnance Moni1orinR Manual, Malcolm Pirnie 1996 Preliminarv Close-Our R~n. EPA 1997 Firsl Five·Year Rcvic\\1 RP.f'V'lrt, EPA 2000 Second Five-Year Rc,icw Renntt, EPA 2005 Sediment Sarapling/f\nalysis. Johnstown Ci1y Landfill, Malcolm 2006 Pirnie Post-Closure Annual Groundw1uer Quality Monitoring Leuer 2005-2010 R.ennns, Malcolm Pimie EPA guidance for conducting five-year reviews and other guidance and regulations to dc1ermine irany new Applicable or Relevan1 and Appropria1e Rcquircmcnis relating to !he pro1ectiveness of the remedy have been develo""" since EPA issued !he ROD.

T-2

Table 4: Other Co1r1n1cn1s on Oucration, ~1:rintcn:1nce, 1\lonirorinu and lnJ:titutional Controls Co111n1ent SuPPtstion

T he ROD called ror d'° lntple1nct11arion of 11 public ,\ public 1t.v.'.1ucness program ntt'd$ to be ifnplen1('ntcd. The City might use this us 1n (lpponunity to explore awucnC$S prQgram to 1n(onn citizcu5 ofany rcn1a1n1ni; potcn1Lul ~1tc reuse opponunilit'.$ \vith 1hc public. Site lSSUCS llnd 10 WhCll (e«fback (rom lhe public.

ltay bales thal have rolled offthe c.np have dnmagcd the fence surrounding the ~nn1ctoror lhc landfill in h\I()

plaec:ii. a treehas fallen onto the fence oon1promi.sing fts

inlc:~ty, and there 11•breach1n the fence on the soulh side of1hc h1ndfill a1tribu111ble to A TV acccss. 1l\C monitoring well$ \\'t'.'re not all properly capped nnd locked.

Al lea.tt one monitoring v.'C'll hn...<1 been dounaged by fnnn c:qutpnu:nt. At least one "'t'll cluster could not be locoted, and in one case, u appears Wit the entite area M!i been scranr.d With a bulldozer. Along 1he perin1eccr or t))C lllndfill c:ip, sand rrorn 1hc cap h11.~ escaped through fi$$un:'$.

During the l1U((Yiew, 11 \Vrui le.tmcd duu the site i~ in.4>pcc1cd annually, r:ithcr than quarterly, 11!C rcqtuml by the OIV'tadon and ~inintcruincc ~innuaL Air qwihty monitonug lJ supposed to be conducted nt the penmcler or the landfill on :I quanerly t>M1s in COl'IJwic11on v.•i1h the site 1nspec11oos. 1U "'fl$ llOtCd 11bo,'t'., the .!lite 1$ inspec.ted annually, rather than quarterly. 4S required bytheOper.u1on and ~tiinten:ancc Maou.iL ln addihon, the 11~~11orul1J l'Cpor1i do not 1nc.lude air nuahlv daJa.

The fence and l!ates mu..~t be Yii,'Orotl$l)' malnll1ncd. The gated cnlr1nccs n1fgh1 benefit froru 11 concrete Jersey barrier. Inspections mll$t be conduc1cd quanc.rly by 11. tnuncd profC$$ional. A rq>oT1 should be included DIC a SUppkmctU ll) lhc groundwater mon1torb1g report tO address d.: iru.pectio11 dclails and lhc ~lllUS o( :IJ\)'

i.41sueslconccms encountertd.

All ofthe rnonitonng \vtll.s 5hould have v.'Ori<ing capS und should be locked ;U 11.ll til'11C:$. h lS funbcr rte0mmended th111 1111 of the monitoring Y.'Cll.J be 1n.-.pectcd for opemtional lock.~ daniagc, and wndalism concurrent with the M1unlin2 ofthe moni1ori.i12 v.·ells.. II 1s rccomn1ended that concrete: bolbrd."i be pl11ccd ilfOUnd the v.-cll'i th.at are close to cuhivattd fields so t11at thfJ type o( d:unagc can be 3\'0tdcd 1n the futu~. It •" also m:om1nc11dcd thnt 4 rai'!>ed nag be llltachcd to each 1noni1or1ng "-ell in order to prevent lhc1n froo1 bc1ng dnma.ged.

To coliUl'C the in1egri1:y ofthe ctip is n1.t1ntnined, n tnuned cng1nttrf1ik1llcd in perfonning 1nsp«lions !lhouldcxa1n1ne I.he cap bi1uuiu11Uy on :a minimun1 basis nnd ptov1dc on 111spection l'q>Otl to EPA. lllis inspection should include llll exnm1n.a11on ofthe rn1irc cap, 1ncJudlna a walk around the ou1.S1dc pcnmctcr of lhe landflll.

A tnainOO profcuHlnAI on a quancrlyb11is should inspce11he s11e, :u)(J :t repon :d'°°ld be included ns a supplement 10 tbe grow1d\V1tll!r monilorlng report to addrw the inll-p«lion dci.ajJs i.nd I.he 1't.i.tu.s of any issoeslconct-n\.'> rocoun1crcd. Air quality 1non1toring should be co1Kluc1cd 1.~<ut'li!1cn1 wnh the rcctu1tt11..:n1s of the Opcnnion ind ~1:iintcr1Ancc

Manual. Air qu:ahty n'-Onitonns ~ltt s.hould be rcponed 11..>41 n supplcmcn1 to the groond"•nlcr monitoring report.

T-3

Tnblc 4: Other Con:1JnCJ1ts on Qperution, Nlaintcnunce, i\1onitori_ne., nnd l11stitutionnl Controls Coo-.mc.nt Suooestlon

There IJ no consistency 1n the inorganic :.nd voe To bc-11crc.harnc1criz.c lhe c.111cn1 or1hc tp'OUndwau~rconu1m1nat.on. full Target Anal)'1C Ustffi'ltgCI Compound L~I pM11mctcn tested in each 1no11i1oring \\'ell. ·ro bcner iin.:1l~is: is needed. chamc1cn 7.c 1he e.111cn1 or lhc ground waler eon1:unina1ion, run 1 norgisnic and voe llC'1:ftS are n«dcd.

An01Jydn; fi l1crcd and unlilt:ered 5amplcs mny be useful Filtered ~nd unlihcn:d a:round"·nter 11nd surface water samples $hould be conslden:d 1n the future samphna CVC:flts.

in btncr undcfStllnding true ground\\ontcr nnd 5Urface water cond1t1Q1u..

ScuiJ\g t"'O s.n1npling cvenl5 100 close to one another Sampling ti:hou1d be do1tc sen~nally (eo.g .. fitll and spring). n1n.y n<>t be n:prescnt:uhvt: <>f the COl)dhfoM 1hrou,¥hou1 the year.

for furutc san1plu1g tvc11L~. the v;duM ror cadmiuu1., chromium, coppe:r, lcad, nickel, and ZulC slKMlld be nttd to be ndJu.'ltcd for hanlncs.s in order for the du1n C4dnuu1n. chro1n1u1u, copper, Je:id. nickel. and t.UlC

ndju.slcd ror h.'lrdncss. 10 be scr«:ncd ngainst .surface \\'nter vnlues protc<livc oftc:olott1cal reecoior.s. B~Ul!C the laboratory's detection limiu for several Contrnci rcquir«I quanl1ficauon hnuts for nil constitucnls should be ullhzcd. voes \\'Cl'C greater than the $lllte st11ndard, ii is unknO\vn whether 1hese constirueius are prcscn1 in 1be

wt'llS.. and 1fnrcscn1. 'vhcd1cr lhc Jc,•cls arc nrotcctl\"e.

T-4

Table 4: Other Con1n1ents on Oocration, l\1ainteI1:a.nce, ~'lonltorinl!, nnd Institutional Controls Co1111n r11r SUPPestion

The ROD c11lcd for rut cwluntfon ofthe cffcc11..·cnessof Should the 1noni1onng rc11ulllJ indicate tha1 ehhct ground\Yltcr qua.hty in lhe overburden oc- bedrock aquifer, or the litndfi ll cap through pos1<0ns1n.icuon n1on1tanng of 11ur(acc \\'ltlet quality 111 ~1alhewCreek 11 n,01 bc111g restored to ttcccplllb1e lcvtls by reduced ltacha1e gencrnhon. ~und\\'atet Ind a.urface water quAhty Should the funher tw:llons may need 10 be u1.kcn. n1on11oring rc.'iuhi indica1c 1hn1 ci1hcr w-ound\V:. tcr quolny tn d'C ovtfburdcn or bt.'Clrock 11qu1(cr. or iaurfacc \l.'aler 4uoh1y in Mathew Crttk 1s not bt.1ng rcMOted 10

nettptablc level$ byrcduocd 1e3chnte&encmuon, further net1o.it~ \\'OUld be taken. In the second l'ivc--~r rovtcv.• in 2005, 1t \\'a.S C-Onc ludro dnu based upon a review of lhe surface and groundwater daUI that wisi; wllcctcd suicc May 1996, the landfill cap 1n combLno11on with na.1ural nuenuattou V.'l\S restonng sround\\'llter and .surf11ec W'fllet quali1y. Therefore, grouiidwnter cxlractton and i.reauncnt wns dctcnn1ned not 10 be ncccs.~ry at 1h1u 111ne. Depending 11pon lhe rC$Uh5 of the sampUng steoun1ng from the rt(Ontnteud4tion.s contaukXI in lhi.s fi\'C-)'Cllr rcv1tw rcporl. hov.~ver, ii 1n11y be neces~ry 10 re.assess thu~ c:onclus1on

New York State no"• requi.n':S annual ccrtificahons lh4l Oocc ilie required UlS-Utu11ona1 controls o.repu1 into plnce, oo on nnnu11I basis. the 11ru1u::il 0&~1 rep<>n !ihould include 1nstuunon.nl controls thnt are required by ROD!! arc 1n 11 ccttificatioo that the 11n.0:111u11onal oontrols arc 1n place. p lace and 1hn1 rcmedy·rehued oper.i1ion and n1111ntenance (O&M) it being pcrfom1cd. On a.n tuutuol b351$, the site 1s in:;poctcd to dctcnninc whether any l n1ru~1 vc :ictivi11cs h11\'c bttn pcrforrnal llic n.1muaJ 0&~1 ~pon duu 1~ currently subn1h1cd by the Perfom1ing Porty includes n sunun1uy etfthe findings of the 1n!lpcc:.llon nlong wuh n ccn1ric.ntion 1hat f'C'mcdy­rel111cd (h~~i i~ he1nci: -rformcd.

T·S

Table S: Rccommcndntlons nnd Follow·U' Actions

)JJUC'

Rteon1otc-nd11Jons and FollOlV•Ub Ac1lo11s

P1r1y R~uonslbfC'

O\'trslgh1 Atttncy­

(\1 il tslOllC!

0 1 1t

;\ffcc1~ Pro1et1lvcness IV/NI

urrrnt Futurr Noiwhhstanding the rnct 1ha1 l!PA nnd the T1;nm havc: com1n1utica1ed ~inc:c the! IB!U fi\'c·)"ellr review rolnuvc ,. drafhng lo.nguage for a res:trictivc eow:uon1 inJhlutiorud conlrols pmh1b11 ing 1hc installation o ground\\'IUCr v.oel111 11nd to protect the intes01y qr the enn IU'C ~till not in Ol3iCC,

A rcilrictl\'C covenant should be: dmRcd ru1d filed. PRP NYSDEC 11/ 11 N y

rhc IC'.·cls ofiron and m<1ng_ancsc u1 ~imcnt sample Addi110nill sediment .samples need to be c:oUcclcd tn PRl' NYSDEC 11/11 N y 1n Je>c:!tlon ~1athcw C~k · 2 e.xceod the New Yori CORJUOCll OR \\'Ith surf.ntt\\'llterdatD and Sf0Und\i,11ter

Suuc ~nmc:in of Enviroruucn111l Cooservatior d4ta to 11sccnain "·bcthcr tl1c iron and ~ng:incsc Setlimcn1 Screening Value :1evcrc. cffccl tcvcl.s. Thus sedimcnl tOnccntrauons a.re associa1cd watb lhc the sediment 11 considered to M SC'\'t'Jdy lmpac1ro. IMdfill. Surfncc w.iter andsedinu~nl samp1est1hould

be colloci:ated •nd collcc1cd during 1he ,.me sampling cwnL lftJlc con1am1n11Lion 151 s1le•rtlalcd, llllecological risk a.ssessmen1 (or tbc creek should be conducted.

Elewtcd c.onccn1ralio11s o( iron and manganese bavt bctn detected in surface Wdlcr and ground\\'U.lc1 S<llmnlcs.

funher lt!l$CSS:1ntnt i$ ocedcd 10 c~lu1uc polcndnl sources..

PRP NYSDEC 11111 N y

Morutoring wtU M\V·9S has bcc:o drunagcd by f:im equipment. Thi> "~II "' pOS1tioncd ditcell) downgrodicnt o( lhc monitoring \\~ll ~1\V-3 clus1cr "·hich ho high dctcctlons ofInd.

Monitoring \\'ell M\V.9S needs 10 be rtpa1rtd prior to lhc 2011 stunphng e..,ent.

PRP NYSDEC 6/11 N y

Al leas1 one wtll cluster could not be loco,tcd, and ir one ca$C (the t--1\V-2 clu..11cr), ii npp<'"1rll lhilt the cnliN: area h:.s been scmpul with a bulldour.

A \VCll survey 4hould be: conduc1ed. In nddihon to identlfylng the loc.·tuion.' of the 01sting \V<'llS, the SUM.'Y .!lhou1d repon on tM nli!>Stn.gwells a.nd iftl1ey arc.~ IQCtt t....i t<:<t1 thcir u~obili1v

PRP NYSDEC 6111 N y

T-6