112*1

Proposed Remedial Action Plan

DELTA QUARRIES ANDDISPOSAL SITE

EPA Region IIIFebruary 15, 1991

Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)under the statutory requirements of Section 117(a) of theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) announces the Proposed Plan for the Delta Quarriesand Disposal Site. The Proposed Plan presents the preferredalternative of the EPA and the Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources (PADER) as well as therationale for selection of the alternative. In addition, thisplan highlights the findings of the Remedial Investigation andFeasibility Study (RI/FS) and describes each of the remedialalternatives analyzed for the site. The plan also requestspublic comment on the alternatives presented in the FeasibilityStudy. All interested parties are encouraged to review thecomplete site information contained in the RI/FS reports andother documents that make up the Administrative Record for thissite. The Administrative Record is housed in the localinformation repository at Altoona Public Library, 1600 5thAvenue, Altoona, PA 16602.

The EPA encourages the public to participate in the reviewof the remedy selection and reminds them that their comments willbe considered by the EPA in the final selection of a preferredalternative. The final remedial action could differ from thepreferred alternative as listed in this proposed plan based uponany new information or arguments that the EPA may consider as aresult of the public review and comment.

Public comments concerning the remedial alternativesdescribed in the Feasibility Study will be accepted by the EPArepresentatives listed at the end of this document during thepublic comment period which begins on February 15, 1991 andcloses on March 17, 1991.

On March 4, 1991, a public meeting to discuss the remedialalternatives will be held at The Antis Township MunicipalBuilding, 909 North 2nd Street, Altoona, PA 16617 at 7:00 p.m.

Site Background r - . , ,-.. ,.=-.., -

The Delta Quarries and Disposal Site, as shown on Figure 1,comprises an approximately-137 acre parpel of land located about1 mile north of Altoona, Pennsylvania and 1 mile south of

&R3QM89

Pinecroft, Pennsylvania. The landfill itself comprisesapproximately 57 acres of the property. The landfill is borderedto the west by Sixth Avenue and to the east by Sandy Bank Road.The area is rural in nature with residences sporadically locatednear the site area. Several dwellings are within 35 feet of theeast side of the site landfill boundary.

iThe Little Juniata River (figure 1), which flows

northeasterly, lies approximately one-quarter mile west of thesite. The City of Altoona Sewage Treatment Plant and a privatelyowned solid waste transfer station are located approximately 750feet west of the southern portion of the site. Three privatejunkyards are also located to the west of the site.

A natural depression originally existed on-site prior to theonset of landfilling operations. In 1964, two adjacent municipalwaste^landfilling operations, the Stotler and the Parshall/Kruiselandfills, commenced. These two operations merged in 1976 toform the Stotler landfill. Delta Quarries and Disposal purchasedthe Stotler landfill in 1978 and operated the facility until itsclosure in 1985.

Reports from previous landfill operators and EPA and PADERfile information suggest that the majority of wastes

A RlO 1+

(approximately 99.8 percent) contained in the landfill aremunicipal wastes. Both the EPA and PADER files indicate thatindustrial wastes were accepted by the Stotler landfill and byDelta Quarries and Disposal. No records were found thatindicated that industrial wastes were accepted by theParshall/Kruise landfill. The industrial wastes identifiedincluded organic solvents, process sludges with heavy metals,tramp oils and residue from sedimentation basis.

In 1984, PADER and Delta Quarries and Disposal entered intoa Consent Order requiring Delta Quarries and Disposal to developand implement a closure plan for the landfill. The DeltaQuarries landfill ceased operations on February 28, 1985. In thesummer of 1987, a four-foot cap of soil materials borrowed froman area southeast of the site was placed over the landfill aspart of the site closure activities. The cap was vegetated toprovide erosion control. Sedimentation control was provided byutilizing interceptor berms, rock-lined channels, andsedimentation basins.

In 1986, the Delta Quarries and Disposal Site was listed onthe National Priorities List (NPL) in accordance with theprovisions of CERCLA. On September 18, 1987, Delta Quarries andDisposal entered into a Consent Order and Agreement with EPA toconduct the RI/FS for the Delta Quarries and Disposal Site.

The RI/FS is done to identify the extent and amount ofcontamination and the potential risk to human health and theenvironment and to identify a remedial alternatives to addressany risk posed by the site. The remedial investigation of thesite was initiated in September 1988 and completed in January1991 (with the exception of additional testing of the cap). Theresults of the RI are as follows: :

o The review of surface water and sediment data fromsampling done of surface water and sedimentconcluded that there was no observable negativeimpact from the water which migrates westerly fromthe wetland to the Little Juniata River.i . i i --

o The ecological investigation conducted as part ofthe'RI indicated that the water quality of LittleJuniata River, Sandy Run Creek and the adjacentwetland fed by FAM Spring, (located just below 6thAvenue, adjacent to the waste transfer station)are :not adversely impacted by the landfill andtherefore, would not be impacting on the aquaticcommunity.

o Analytical results from eight surface soil samplesobtained in the study area revealed that therewere low level volatile organic compound (VOC)

flR30UI9l

contamination in two samples. Several semi-volatile compounds were also detected in onesample.

o Results of the soil gas survey performed duringthe RI indicate that hydrocarbon concentrationsdecrease with distance away from the landfill.The results also indicate consistently high levelsof hydrocarbons, mostly in the form of methane, onthe landfill at concentrations greater than 1000ppm. Soil gas survey readings taken in the middleof the landfill cap produced a large drop off inthe concentrations of hydrocarbons (20 ppm).These low readings may be due, in part, to theclay content of the capping material.

o Analytical results indicate that low levels ofVOCs, including 35 parts per billion (ppb) ofvinyl chloride in one well, are present ingroundwater monitoring wells to the west of thelandfill, with the exception of one well locatednortheast of the landfill. VOCs were not detectedin any of the residential wells sampled during theRemedial Investigation. Because the groundwatej-moves in a westerly direction, compoundsoriginating from the landfill may be migratingtowards the Little Juniata River and would bedetected in the monitoring wells. Chemicalcompounds have not migrated to the residentialwells to the northwest of the site.

Summary of Site Risks

The principal contaminants of concern are the VOCs; 1, 1-dichloroethane, 1, 2-dichloroethene, chloroform, 1, 2-dichloroethane, trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethane (PCE),vinyl chloride and'one heavy metal, manganese. MaximumContaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water were exceededsporadically for 1, 2-dichlorethene, 1,2-dichloroethane,trichloroethene and vinyl chloride.

A Baseline Public Health Evaluation and a risk assessmentwere conducted to estimate the human health and the environmentalproblems that could result if no further response action is takenat the site. These analyses focused on the major contaminants ofconcern as listed above. In calculating the risk to human healthand the environment, various potential exposure pathways wereanalyzed. These included dermal contact and ingestion of surfacesoils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments as well asinhalation of possible airborne contaminants. Risks arecalculated by considering the concentration and toxicity of thecompounds ,at the site along with standard assumptions about human

flR30l*!92

intakes of those substances to estimate the potential exposure.The potentially exposed human population include children andadult trespassers visiting the site and local residents usinglocal water supply wells.

Using the maximum reasonable exposure assumptions, underwhich all possible routes of exposure are considered, apotential risk of adverse human health effects under baselineconditions exists as a result of possible migration ofcontaminants into the private drinking well supply. The totalexcess carcinogenic risk is 1.4E-4 for the site based oncontaminants reaching the private water supply wells sometime inthe future. Under CERCLA, a cancer risk higher than l.OE-4 isconsidered unacceptable. (l.OE-4 or IxlO-4 means that anindividual has an additional one in ten thousand chances ofdeveloping cancer solely as a result of 70-year cumulativeexposure to a substance under specific exposure conditions. Thetoteal lifetime chronic hazard chronic :hazard index for the siteis 3.OE-1 or.3. A hazard index greater :than 1 for noncarcinogensis considered unacceptable.

Table 1 shows the summary of combined risks for the site.As identified in the RI/FS, the groundwater measured in themonitoring wells around the landfill is contaminated with VOCs.Peak concentrations of vinyl chloride, TCE, and"l, 2-dichloroethene 1,2-didorethane found in some of the wells havesporadically exceeded the MCLs for safe drinking water; however,none of these contaminants have been found in any of the watersupply wells sampled during the remedial investigation. Theexisting soil cap serves as a physical barrier to prevent dermalcontact or accidental ingestion of .any of the contaminants ofconcern by anyone who may come into physical contact with thesite.

Potentially exposed nonhuman populations include the aquaticlife in the adjacent western wetlands. The potentially exposedpopulations at the site are macroinvertebrates, fish, and benthicorganisms. The exposures to these populations can occur fromdirect contact with contaminants in water and sediment or bybioaccumulation in the food chain.

The ecological investigation which was undertaken as a partof the remedial investigation found that excess concentrations,above ambient water quality criteria, of iron, magnesium,manganese, silver, sodium and ammonia were present at one surfacewater sampling point between the landfill and the westernwetland. None of these substances were found to be in excess inany of the other surface water samples from within the wetlanditself. Nitrate nitrogen was found in two sediment samplingpoints within the wetland, however, it is unlikely that thelandfill is the source of the nitrogen nitrate because no

significantly elevated levels of it were found at sampling pointsbetween the landfill and the wetland*

Table 1

»S fftnoatCoafldaaoa Umltof tfc« MM* oriakia*Coooaatratiaa flatar Criteria

la fufclia OP?*? tbtalMaltCUodcal Maaltoriaf «»Ua «atar OogBllaa LUait of_____vmtSi—————AIM—————SUM** ftirtChleridtt C.S 2 ""» 1.2 z 10~ (A) 0.100

19.3 — > -s— 1.0 a 10'* (12) 0.003l,i-BiehlorootlMaa 30.0 70*100 Jropoaad MO. a* 0.042

7.7 (ioo) mom* 4.1 x io"7 <»aj o.ou4.0 9 MCt 3.1 X IO"4 («) 0.012

TriokloroatiMM 10.7 S «I» 1.0 x IO*4 fp+nrt1n«) 0.004fvtvaoaloro taM 3.» S fcogog^m 1.7 x IO*4 (pmUag) 0.00007

14*4.0total 1.4 x 10" 0.3

* - vatiaaal xatarla Vrlaarr Driaklaf ffacarttla aay not qualify aa ta JAM for

*.

ora proaoot la raw fxouadMtara.

RR30U19U

Summary of Alternatives . .I i . - - ' • ! - : i - • *

In the development of the alternatives for the site,technology types were screened based on the known wastecharacteristics and site conditions. In order to be furtherevaluated, the technology types and process options must have thepotential to meet the remedial objective of the site, which is toprotect human health and the environment.

The alternatives given final consideration for the site are:

o Alternative A: No Action

o Alternative B: Deed and Access Restrictions,Monitoring and Cap Maintenance.

o Alternative C: Deed and Access Restrictions,Monitoring an<i Cap Maintenance andAlternative Water Supply.

o Alternative D: Deed and Access Restrictions,Monitoring, Multilayer Cap, and CapMaintenance.

o Alternative E: Groundwater Treatment, Deed and AccessRestrictions, Monitoring, and CapMaintenance. : .

o Alternative F: Excavation, Onsite Incineration,Solidification, Multilayer Cap, Deedand Access Restrictions, Monitoring andCap Maintenance,

Because some hazardous substances would remain left onsite,a five year review would be conducted under all alternativesexcept Alternative F. All technologies; have common technologieswhich include fencing, groundwater monitoring andadministrative/institutional controls except Alternative A. Thefollowing description of the alternatives discusses theirapplicability as potential response actions. The costs forimplementing each alternative include estimates of both theinitial capital outlay to construct the, remedy and the annualcosts of operating the remedy until the cleanup is completed.

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTIONCAPITAL COSTS: $9,312Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $77,200Present Worth Costs: $209,672

AR30U95

Months to Implement: 0

CERCLA requires that the "no action" alternative beevaluated at every site to establish a baseline for comparison.Under this alternative, EPA would take no further action toprevent exposure tp the risks posed at the Delta Quarries andDisposal Site. However, a five-year review of the effectivenessof the selected alternative would be conducted because somehazardous substances would remain onsite.

ALTERNATIVE B: DEED AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS, MONITORING ANDCAP MAINTENANCE

Capitol Costs: $242,905Annual O&M Costs: $55,1601 /$32,2602Present Worth Costs: $514,406Months to Implement: 6

!/ years 1-3, 2/ years 4-30

This alternative would include the construction of a six-foot high tensile strength fence along the perimeter of thelandfill, deed restrictions which would :prevent any futureactions which would disturb the landfill surface and wastes,including construction of roads, underground utilities or wells.A sampling plan would be implemented to monitor ground andsurface water over a 30-year period. The existing cap would bemaintained, through installation of gas vents and other measures,to ensure its continued integrity.

ALTERNATIVE C: HOOK-UP DOWNGRADIENT RESIDENTS TO PUBLICWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, DOWNGRADIENT RESIDENTIALWELL CLOSURE, DEED AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

! WITH LIMITED GROUNDWATER AND SURFACEMONITORING, MAINTENANCE OF CLAY CAP

Capital Costs: $831,155Annual O&M Costs: $11,760 1/ $12,060 2Present Worth Cost: $1,085,402Months to Implement: 12

I/ Years 1-2 2. Years 3-30

This alternative is identical to Alternative B except thatdowngradient residents would also be provided an alternate watersupply through connection to a public water source. Existingprivate wells would be closed to prevent further use. Inaddition, the monitoring plan would be less extensive than thatwhich is developed for Alternative B as the downgradientresidences would no| longer be potentially exposed to anyhazardous substances in their water supply.

1*196

ALTERNATIVE D: MULTILAYER CLAY CAP, DEED AND ACCESSRESTRICTIONS WITH GROUNDWATER AND SURFACEWATER MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE OF CLAY CAP

Capital Cost: $6,237,368Annual O&M Costs: $55/l601 $32,260*Present Worth Cost: $6,766,964Months to Implement: 18

!/ Years 1-3 £/ Years 4-30

This alternative is identical to Alternative B except theexisting clay cap would be replaced with a multilayer cap inaccordance with current standards applicable to new caps, servingas an improved barrier to prevent the infiltration of water. Thecap would be upgraded by the addition of a 60 millimeter thickhigh density polyethylene membrane barrier within the existingclay cap. The addition of the membrane will further reduce anyinfiltration of water through the cap layer. This alternativewill enhance the long term performance of the cap and will alsoenhance the overall integrity of the cap's containment function,

ALTERNATIVE E: GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT VIA AIR, STRIPPING, DEED AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS WITHGROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING,AND MAINTENANCE OF CLAY CAP

Capital Costs:1 $1,167,592Annual O&M Costs: $91,128Present Work Cost: $2,344,581Months to Implement: 12

This alternative consists of groundwater extraction throughextraction wells and treatment via air stripping, with theeffluent generated being discharged to the Little Juniata Riveror to the Altoona Treatment Plant. Ground and surface watermonitoring, deed and access restrictions and cap maintenancewould be the same as in Alternative B.

ALTERNATIVE F: ; EXCAVATION AND LANDFILL SOURCE REMOVAL, ON-! SITE INCINERATION WITH ON-SITESOLIDIFICATION, DISPOSAL OF INCINERATOR ASHMULTILAYER CAP, DEED AND ACCESS

RESTRICTION'S WITH .GROUNDWATER AND SURFACEWATER ! " ' , ' ; : ' - ;

: MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE OF CLAY CAP

Capital Costs: $72,096,668

AR30U97

Annual O&M Costs: $55,1601 /$32,2602Present Worth Cost: $72,626,264Months to Implement: 240

I/ Years 1-3 2/ Years 4-30

The alternative would consist of the excavation ofapproximately 6700.cubic yards of industrial wastes containedwithin the landfill, incineration of the wastes through aportable rotary kiln incinerator, stabilization of the residualashes, if necessary, installation of a better liner forstabilized ash disposal if needed, placement of a multilayer capsimilar to the one.in alternative D. In addition, deed andaccess restrictions for the site would be imposed with continuedmonitoring of the ground and surface water and maintenance of theupgraded cap.

CERCLA requires that each proposed alternative be protectiveof human health and the environment, cost effective, and inaccordance with statutory requirements. In order to comparevarious alternatives, EPA has developed a series of nine criteriaby which each alternative is compared to ensure that the remedyselected is best for a particular site. -. Permanent solutions tocontamination are to be achieved wherever possible. In addition,emphasis is placed upon treating wastes on-site, whereverpossible to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of site-related contaminants. EPA expects to return usable groundwatersto their beneficial uses, wherever practicable, within a timeframe that is reasonable given the particular circumstances ofthe site. A summary of the nine evaluation criteria is given inTable 2 below.

__________Table 2 - Nine Evaluation Criteria______________

O OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THEENVIRONMENT - addresses whether or not a remedy will:cleanup a site to within the risk range; result in anyunacceptable impacts; control the inherent hazards(e.g., toxicity and mobility) associated with a site;and minimize the short-term impacts associated withcleaning of the site.

o COMPLIANCE WITH ARAR!s - addresses whether or not aremedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements of other environmental statuesand/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.

o LONG-TERM EFFECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE - Alternatives willbe assessed for the long-term effectiveness andpermanence they afford.

o REDUCTIONioF TOXICITY, MOBILITY OR VOLUME THROUGH,TREATMENT ;- Assesses the degree to which alternatives

io

flR30M9

employ treatment or recycling that reduces toxicity,mobility or volume.

o SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS - refers to the period of timeneeded to achieve protection, and any adverse impactson human health and the environment that may be posedduring the construction and implementation period untilcleanup goals are achieved.

o IMPLEMENTABILITY - describes the technical andadministrative feasibility of a remedy/ including theavailability of materials and services needed toimplement the chosen solution.

o COST - includes the capital cpst for materials,equipment, etc. and the operation and maintenancecosts.

o STATE ACCEPTANCE - indicates whether, based on itsreview of the RI, FS, and the Proposed Plan, the Stateconcurs with, opposes or has no comment on thepreferred alternative.

o COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE - will be assessed in the Recordof Decision following a review of the public commentsreceived on the RI, FS, and Proposed Plan.

Evaluation of Alternatives and the Preferred Alternative

Remedial action goals for the Delta Quarries and Disposalsite are (1) to prevent ingestion of grpundwater associated withthe site which has concentrations greater than the appropriateMCLs and (2) protect downstream water quality to assureconcentrations of parameters associated with the Delta Quarriesand Disposal site meet federal and state water quality criteria.

EPA's preferred alternative for the Delta Quarries andDisposal Site is Alternative E, Pumping and Treating of theGroundwater via an Air Stripper. This alternative for the sitewill be referred hereafter as the Preferred Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative would consist of extracting thegroundwater below the landfill through a series of extractionwells, whose number will be determined during the design phase.The groundwater which will be extracted will then be run throughan airstripper which will remove the VpC's from the water bycausing them to volatize into the air chamber. The air emissionfrom the stripping operation will then be filtered throughactivated carbon to capture the VOC's before the air is emittedinto the ambient atmosphere. The groundwater which has beentreated will then be discharged either to the Altoona Sewage

Treatment Plant, or the Little Juniata River. This will be alsodetermined during the design stage.

Based on current information, the Preferred Alternativeappears to provide the best balance among the alternatives withrespect to the nine criteria that EPA uses to evaluatealternatives. This section profiles the performance of thepreferred alternative against the nine .criteria, noting how itcompares to the other options under consideration.

OVERALL PROTECTION; If the Preferred Alternative is implemented,it would provide protection of human health and the environmentby eliminating, reducing or controlling risk through treatment,engineering controls or institutional controls. Alternative Fwould also be protective of human health by eliminating thesource which poses the risk at the site. Alternative B wouldprotect human health in the limited sense that it would alertpotential receptors of impending risk from the groundwater whichwould then require:an additional action. Alternative C would beprotective of human health by eliminating the risk potentiallycaused by consuming the contaminated groundwater, however, futurepotential receptors may still be at risk if not required to hookinto the new water :supply system. Alternative D would also beprotective by reducing the infiltration.of water into_thelandfill, thus reducing leachate from further contaminating thegroundwater. The ";no action" alternative, Alternative A, is notprotective of human health because it does not address theexisting contamination; therefore it is not considered further inthis analysis.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE. The Preferred Alternative would meet therequirements of ARAR's, some of which are described below. Theair stripping operation will comply with both the federal andstate air emission requirements including the National Standardfor Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) as set fourth at 40 C.F.R.§61.63 and promulgated under the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. §7401.The effluent generated will comply with the Commonwealthdischarge requirements. In addition, the following is to beconsidered but is not as ARAR the existing cap and relatedengineered appurtenances in addition to site maintenance will beaccordance with Section 271.113 of the State Municipal WasteRegulations and Municipal Waste Guidance #21. Any carbon used infiltering the air emissions will be disposed of in accordancewith Land Disposal Regulations. In addition, the remedy wouldmeet the Pennsylvania ARAR for contaminated groundwater. ThePennsylvania ARAR for groundwater for hazardous substances isthat all groundwater must be remediated to "background" qualityas specified by 25 Pa. Code Chapter 75.2£4(n). The Commonwealthof Pennsylvania also maintains that the requirement to remediateto background is also found in other legal authorities.Alternative E would:likely meet this background requirement afterincineration of the contaminant sources, however, it may take a

- ------ ^ 12 _ :; - . . ...

incineration of the contaminant sources, however, it may take anumber years following completion of incineration of thecontaminant sources for the groundwater to be completely purgedof any remaining contamination. Alternatives B, C, and D may notmeet the Stategroundwater cleanup requirements as no treatment of thegroundwater is undertaken.

LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE. The PreferredAlternative would reduce the long term hazards posed by thegroundwater contamination by treating the groundwater.Alternative B would limit possible exposure through thegroundwater monitoring, which would alert any possible receptorsprior to any instance of intake. Alternative C would eliminateany exposure to hazardous groundwater contamination by hookingcurrent potential receptors to a public water supply. However,any future potential receptors could possibly be exposed tohazards posed by the groundwater if they were not hooked up to analternative water supply. Alternative F would eliminate thehazards posed by the groundwater by eliminating the source ofcontamination. However, the levels of groundwater contaminationmay exist for a time period following incineration of the sourceuntil natural purging removes the remaining contaminants in thegroundwater. Alternatives B, C, and D do not comply with theCERCLA preference for treatment. ^

REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME OF THE CONTAMINANTSTHROUGH TREATMENT. The Preferred Alternative and Alternative Fwould treat the wastes to reduce toxicity, mobility or volume.The Preferred Alternative would reduce mobility of the wastes bypumping and treating of the groundwater. It does not however,treat the source of the contaminants, however, maintenance of thecap is expected to prevent any significant impact of theremaining waste on the groundwater. Alternative F would reducethe volume and toxicity of the wastes by thermal destruction. Noreduction in toxicity, mobility or volume is realized foralternatives B, C, or D.

i ; . . i i

SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS. The Preferred Alternative would beimplemented within an estimated 12 months from the remedyselection date however, the actual pumping and groundwatertreatment will take approximately 4- 1/2 years to complete.Alternatives B & C, could be implemented within an estimated 12months. Alternative D would take an estimated 12 months toimplement. Alternate F could take up to 15 years to implementdue to the time needed to procure a proper mobile incinerator,perform treatability tests and time for the actual incineration.There is a potential risk associated with volatilization ofwastes within the landfill under Alternative F. Duringexcavation of waste material, potential exposure to workers andthe surrounding community is possible.

*• 13 :

fiRSQUZO!

IMPLEMENTABILITY, The various alternatives have few associatedadministrative difficulties that could delay implementation.Treatability studies would be required prior to implementation ofAlternative F, to confirm the suitability of the technology.Additional engineering studies would be required to maximize thepumping requirements for the Preferred Alternative. For thePreferred Alternative and Alternative F, treatment equipment andskilled workers would be available but limited. The equipment toimplement Alternatives B, C, and D are readily available. Forall of the alternatives, monitoring of the water duringimplementation would be required. Long-term monitoring ofgroundwater would be required for Alternatives B and F.

COST. The present-worth cost of the Preferred Alternative is$2,344,581. The lowest cost alternative is Alternative B (DeedRestrictions, Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring,Maintenance of Clay Cap) at $750,134. The highest costAlternative F (Onsite Incineration) at $72,603,897. The other FSalternative costs are presented in the alternative descriptionSections.

STATE ACCEPTANCE. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has concurredin the remedy selection.

COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE. Community acceptance of the PreferredAlternative will be evaluated after the public comment periodends and will be described and responded to in the Record ofDecision.

Community Involvement .; -

EPA relies on public input so that the alternative selectedfor each Superfund site meets the needs and concerns of the localcommunity. The public participation process is intended toassure the community's concerns are being addressed. A publiccomment period will be held concerning the Proposed Plan. Duringthis time, the public is encouraged to submit comments on theProposed Plan and RI/FS to EPA. EPA, in consultation with theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, may modify the preferredalternative, select another response action, or develop anotheralternative, if public comment warrants such an action, or if newmaterial is presented. Therefore, the public is encouraged toreview and comment on all the alternatives presented in the FSReport. The alternative ultimately selected will be documentedin a Record of Decision that summarizes EPA's decision-makingprocess. , - , !

Background documents regarding the Delta Quarries andDisposal site, as well as copies of the Remedial Investigationand Feasibility Study reports and this Proposed Plan, areavailable to the public at the information repository located at:

14

AR3QU2Q2

Altoona Public Library1600 5th Avenue

Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602

EPA will hold a public meeting at.7:00 p.m., March 47 1991at Antis Township Municipal Building, 909 N. 2nd Street, Altoona,PA 16617 to discuss the remedial alternatives and the PreferredAlternative for the Delta Quarries and Disposal Site. Interestedcitizens also will be provided an opportunity to ask questionsand provide comments.

The public meeting will take place during a minimum 30-daypublic comment period on the Proposed Plan. The public commentperiod begins on February 15, 1991, and concludes on March 17,1991. Citizens are encouraged to review site-related documentsand submit written comments to one of the following people:

Leanne Nurse (3PAOO)Public Affairs SpecialistU. S. EPA - Region III ,841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pa. 19107(215) 597-6920

Martin Kotsch (3HW23)Remedial Project ManagerU. S. EPA - Region III841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pa. 19107

All comments must be submitted to one of the above peopleand postmarked on or before March 17, 1991.

15