,.....,. WILLEY 8c LERoY, LTD.

April 25, 1986

John R. Moebea, Chief Certified Mail Superfund Branch Return Receipt Regueated Divilion of wute Manage~~ent Environmental Protection Agency J,P.K. Building Boston, Ma..achuaetta 02203

Rer Lanc!fill ' Resource Recovery , Inc.

Dear Birr

'l'hia ia in reaponae to your l e tter to ua dated Nove•­ber 1, 1985 and in further reapon.. to your letter dated January 29, 1985, to which we initially replied on March 19, 1985.

In our letter to you of March 19, 1985, we aaid we would at a later date co..ent on the raat of your letter of January 29, 1985. lfe happen to respectfully dieagree with uny of the =-enta, aaaertiona, and conclueiona eat forth in your letter of January 29, 1985. However, w. cUd not want to high­light our difference• at that u .. becauae at that u .. we were entirely devoting ounelvee to gathering the inforJMtion and conducting the inveet i gation you had requeeted and to co•pleting the project in accord with the plane eut.:itted •• eoon •• po..ible , incorporating all your t echnical recoaendatione wherever poadble .

We would like to put on record, however, that we dhagree with the characterization• contained in your letter of January 29 , 1985. In particular, we call your attention to the top of page 2. You auggeat that we •midnterpreted • or • miacon­atrued• thinga. We can only ..y that your earlier letter of July 26, 1983 apeaka for itaelt, and that letter eubatantiatea our poaition.

Furthermore, the letter Wehran Engineering aent you on Auguat 30, 1983 on our behalf h fully coneiatent with and reapondve to your own letter of July 26, 1983 and the raeetinge held in between. It is odd for you to auggeet that Wehran'e Auguat 30, 1983 letter miaeonetruee anything, when it h evidently fully coneiatent with your own letter of July 26, 1983.

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, 1986 Page Two

Moreover, your current suggestion, that our August30, 1983 letter aisinterpreted your position, ia irrefutably contradicted by the fact that you never wrote back to that effect.

If indeed our l a tter of Auguat 30, 1983 waa a ••iainterpretation, • it beco11ea hard to explain why you didn 1t tall ua ao at the tiae.

At the ti111e, you were fully aware that we were pro­ceeding in reliance on that letter of Auguat 30, 1983 and the Agree..nt it de~cribed. Yet never did you tell ua anything to the contrary.

Your own letter of July 26, 1983 acknovledgea .that the Wehran Engineering plana and report were being aubaitted aa fulfilling the r aquire..nta of a RI/PS. In your latte r, you critiqued it on that baah.

Suffice it to aay that (1) theae docu.enta apeakfor thMaelvea and (2) never at the tiM did you write ua that our letter of Auguat 30, 1983 waa a •iaintarpretation of your position•.)

Further, baaed on your latter of July 26, 1983 and the -•tinga held throughout the •~r of 1983, including the Metinc)of August 28, 1983, you induced ua to take certain additional atepa aa aet forth in our August 30, 1983 latter, in reliance upon the agreeMnta aada1 and in reliance thereon, we proc..ded on that baaia.

Our only desire ia to close thia aita in an environ­..ntally aound aanner as aoon aa po..ible. Toward that end, we have expended tre..ndoua efforta and considerable .oney and it appears to be conceded that we have been doing a good job.

we are under a Court Order to proceed, and we are proceeding aa fast as po..i ble.

With regard to your letter dated NoveMber 1, 1985, it h a little difficult to know exactly hov to respond. Your letter of Novelllber 1, 1985 atatea that it contains •coiMienta• which •111ay• be uaed aa a standard againat which thia landfill may be judged in the future, or aay not. Purther, you atate that you are not in a position to give ua EPA approval, even if we did every single thing you aaked.

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, 1986 Page 'l'hree

'fhia puta ua in a difficult poaition, and we do not know exactly how to reapond.

We have been trying our beat to cloae out thia land­fill in an environn~entally aound aanner . We have invited your co-enta, and we have tried to cooperate in every inatance .

However, ve 4o not know exactly what to make of your 110at recent co-enta.

A good exa~tple of ~h b your augg..tion ~at we put down 12 inchea of topaoil cover fill inatead of 6. '1'he pro­blea vi~ reaponding to tbh b that when you aada thb co...ant on lfovellber 1, 1985, you already knew that we had already co•­pleted 751 of the cover work and that we bad already co~lated covering 751 of the aite with 6 inchea, juat aa planned.

While we will agree out of a apirit of cooperation to cover the r ...ining 251 with 12 inchea of top aoil when we reaWM thia apring, you can acarcely intend that we re-do the reat of the project, eapecially dnce we did it in accord with our plana and with your full knowledge and under your inapection.

) '!'here h one further probl• with auch c~nta.

Thb b acarcely the firat tiae that the IPA had an oppor­tunity to review our final cloaure plana, including plana for auch thinga aa topaoil and cover. To the contrary, in June, 1983 when the State of Rhode leland approached you, the State gave you a copy of the plana than propoaad, plana which are virtually identical to the on.. nov dhcuuad..

That waa 21t yean ago. It 11 a little late now to give ua c011111ent1. Purthat110re, it 1a a little late to cOIIIIIMint nov when you are aware that the work ia virtual_ly all done.

There b one further probl- with auch COIIItenta. Your letter of Novellbar 1, 1985 would give aoaeone the i•­preaaion that you had never aeen theae plana before and that thia waa the firat occaaion you had to eo...nt on them.

Mr. John R. Moebes April 25, 1986 Page Pour

May we refer you to your letter to us dated July 26, 1983.

That letter etated s

•This letter is a followup to our June 20th Heting regarding future remedial actions at Landfill and Resource Recovery, Inc. (L,RR). It is IIY understanding that the Rhode Island Department of Environmental ManageHnt {DEM) and L•RR entered into a eon..nt Order and Agreement ae of July 1983, eetting forth the ter•• and condition• for the final operation and clo•ure of the landfill. 'l'hh plan h81 been recouended to .. by RI DIM a1 a poeitive course of re11edial action. The June 1983 Wehran Engineering report h81 been propoeed •• fulfilling the require•nte of a Re•edial Inveatigation Peaaibility· Study {RI/PS) •• deacribed in 40 CPR Part 300 . 68 of the National Contingency Plan . •

That letter went on to etate :

•tt h !PA '• reaponeibilit} to exa•in• the technical ~ of afl propoaed re•ec!lal eo utlone to eneure protection Of -pUblic health and the environ.ent.

I •• eub•itting the following co•enta to you regarding the .£!2.!.!!£! and ground water 110nitorlng plane. 1 (!llph81ia added)

That letter vent on to uke apecific co•ente on the clo1ure plan.

'1'hoee co-enta are relevant in eevaral reapecte. To begin with, we relied on them. we Mt with you on tho and we acted upon the•.

In fact, both the State and we relied on them and your earlier oral representation•. That waa the whole purpoee of the ..eting of June 20, 1983. You will recall that the •eeting of June 20, 1983 waa called by the State, with whom we were then trying to negotiete a eettlement. The State wanted to make eure that the eettlement propoaed would be conahtent with EPA require­menta. Por that reaaon, the State convened that meeting. We

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, 1986 Page Pive

happened to have very detailed note• aa to what waa aaid at that meeting. 'rhe repreaentativea of the State began by ..ying that they were •trying to work out a remedial action• and wanted EPA •aupport. • The State wanted to proceed with i11plementing the plana aa aoon aa poaaible. However, the State waa willing to back off if the BPA felt the plana were inconahtent with what the EPA wanted. The !PA agreed to review the plana, which it d.id J and. thereafter the !PA gave ita go-ahead.

In reliance thereon, the Stat e and we proceeded.

In particular, in reliance on your concurrence , the State and. we agr eed to enter into t he aettlement, and we aought and obtained cour t approval on that baaia . Furthe r more,. we r elied on your 1983 r eview in the 110at fundamental of waya1 We pro­ceeded t o conatruc t and then cloae the landfill in conforaity with the plana ahown you in June of 1983 .

In thia context , it c 011ea aa quite a &hock to ua for you to aake co•enta nov that are inconaiatent with the re­view you aad.e 21) yeare ago .

When we agreed to enter into a Conaent Agree..nt with the State of Rhode Iahnd, we gave up very valuable righta to continue to operate our landfill. 'rhat waa a ..jor c:oncealion on our part. However, ve were willinq to do it in reliance on certain repreaentationa that had. been ..de to ua.

Row we find ouraelvea two and a half yeara later with the landfill cloaed, aa we agreed to, and the cover on the aite nearinq ca~~pletion, aa we had agreed to, and we find ouraelvea with a l e tte r frota the BPA whi ch ia inconaiatent with the previoua IPA review, inconaiatent with our plan, and inconaiatent with the work we have already done and done with the full knowledge of and. i napection by the IPA.

The Court Orde r provi de& that the Di r ector of the D! M can r equire add i tional work if ther e ia a change of ci rcUJDatancea . However , no change haa been alleged.

We appreciate collllllenta from you. However, we pur­poaely gave you theae plana two and a half yeara ago . Bad you given ua theae couenu two and a half yeara ago, we might have incorporated them into our cloaure plana , and we would have incorporated them in our coat eatimatea for figuring out under what term& we might enter into the Consent Agreement with the State.

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, 1986 Page Six

We have tried our beat and we believe aucce..fully to cloae out thh aite in an enviroi\IHntally aound manner and to do ao aa pro11ptly aa poaaible. Purther110re we are under a Court Order to do certain thinga pro.ptly and to do them in the aanner eet forth in plana which are part of that Court Order .

What you are nov aaking in certain inatancea ia in­conaiatent with the Court Order. It h inconabtent with our doing thia thing promptly aa required by the Court Order. It h inconaiatent with the go-ahead you gave in June, 1983.

We feel aa if we are in a aituation where, on one hand, the Court baa ordered ua to do eo•• thinga and we are co~~plying with the Court Order, and, on the other hand, J'IOW that we have coaplied with al110at the entire Court Order, you are telling ua to do aa.ething different .

Your letter of July 26, 1983 aaked ua to do certain apecific, additional actiona. We agreed to do the• all, and ve in fact did thea. If you had wanted ua to do .are thinga than ..ked for in that letter, you had every opportunity to do ao that au..er.

If you had wanted to intervene in the court caae pending in Rhode leland in 1983, you had every opportunity .

If you wanted ua to do ao.ethin9 different, you could have told ua your faelinga two and a half yean ago.

Bov.var, you choae not to.

Therefore, at thia point, we will continue to proceed with cloaing thia landfill out aa pr011pt1y aa po..ible and in accord with the plana which the Court require• ua to carry out, plana which the State, the Court, and our axperta have all agreed provide for cloaing the aite in an environaentally aound ..nner .

In that context, here are co..enta to apecific parte of your letter dated Novellber 1, 1985 r

1. Depth of topaoil cover.

Aa baa been previoualy alluded to, your auggeation to have an additional 6 inches of topaoil can not be incor­porated into the plan becauae the plan ia already 7St coraplete.

However, we will out of a apirit of cooperation agree to put 12 inches of topsoil on the reraaining 2St when we re­

Mr. John R. Moebes April 25, 1986 Page Seven

euae work in the epring.

We would point out, however, that the cover that b in fact there hae prove4 to be adequate and hae for a couple of yeare. rurther110re, with regard to froet, our experience hae been that there hae been no freedng of the eoil underneath the liner even when not covered. rurther110re, we have had dry period• and the cover proved autUcient for eurvival of vegeta­tion. While graee everywhere elee turned brown and dried up, our graee etayed green.

It would appear that the 110et relevant data would be our eite-epecific experience ueing 6 inchee of top eoU. In our experience over uny yeare, it hae worked out tine . .

2. Vegetation Speciee .

we are happy to coneider your euggeetione. However, ve would point out that we have bean ueing gra.. einca 1979, we have 6 yean or reeulte, and there ie no evidence that it haen't worked.

We would alert you that we took repreeentative eaiiPlee of our topeoil cover and eent th- to the Univereity of Rhode leland lab for analyeie. (See attached letter and report). Since the pB wae low they rec~nded ve add lit tone of liH­etone per acre which we did. '!'hey rec~nded 5-10-5 or 10-20-10 fertUher. We ueed 5-10-5 at 1600 pound• per acre, the re~nded application, but an old faraer told ue we ehould put the fertilher on in two application• eo it doeen't waeh away. 1'hie ie what we did. The aead aixture wae approved for thie application. Incidentally, once we etarted thie, our gra.. growing reeulte were much better than in the paet. We had only coneidered the planting of graeeee but we will nov look into the planting of graeeee, legu.ee, and ehallov rooting ehrube at your euggeetion. By nov the IPA ehould have received written epecificatione of the vegetation epeciee aix that h being planted to etabilise final cover on the eite.

3. Capping of the Original •auardoue• Waete Area.

'l'o begin with, we do not agree with eeveral of the factual aeeertione contained in your coeent . rurthermore, we do not agree with your aeeeeement, and neither do our axperte .

However, even putting that aeide, you know the work ie

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, 1986 Page light

already virtually complete. It h a little late to auggeet things now when the key work ia already done. In effect, we don't know how to respond to your co111111ent when you are telling ua to do ao•e ­thing you know ie illpo..ible to do. Your auggeationa cannot be incorporated in the plan because the plan h virtually com­plete.

We 11ight remind you that you had virtua lly the ident ical pl ana 21t years ago , and you chose to •ake no conunent whatsoever back the n about the s ufficiency of the cover system. You have not poi nted to anything known now about the alt a which wu not equally we ll known 2'r yean ago . The t act ie when you r eviewed the i dentical plana 21t yean ago, you f ound no fault wi th the liner specifications, and we proceeded to buy and in.atall the liner on that buia , with your full knowledge and punuant to your inspection .

Moreover, it ia not as if you had not coneidered the eufticiency of the cap in your review conducted in 1983. '1'o the contrary, your letter of July 26, 1983 apecitically etatae that you had reviewed the •rinal Cloeure• plana. rurther­IIOre, you epecifically referred to the cap in your letter of July 26, 1983. Your only cOIIMnt (14) waa about aubeidance and eettling. We aubeequently -t with you on that i ..ue and in con­toraity with our agre...nt, on Septeaber 29, 1983 our engineer, Wehran lnginuring, aent you a variety of calculation• and plane you requeated in that reqard, which apparently aatietied yol.ll' concern becauae we did not receive anything back tra- you to the contrary.

rurthertnOre, it ie not ae if the IPA in 1983 had no guidelinea. 'l'o the contrary, at the time the IPA reviewed our cover plana back in June, 1983, the IPA already had guide line• in effect for •Evaluating Cove r System• for Solid and Razardoua Waa t e. •

In view of the fact you gave your go-ahead, we had eve ry reaaon to believe that the cover ayatu proposed waa in conforMity wi th your guide linea. The State and we pr oce eded on that baaie , in r e liance there on. In f act, that waa a JUjor purpos e of aeeting wi th you on June 20, 1983 .

Moreover, it is not as if you were unawar e that we were in fact proceeding to buy and install the cap , in reliance on our previous underatandinga. '1'o the contrary, up until November 1 , 1985, we had aent Dave Webeter at l east 7 liner progress printl and 7 carbon copy letters lhted below, each and every one of which

Mr. John R. Moebes April 25, 1986 Page Nine

spelled out 18 inches of sand covering on top of 20 11111 PVC liner. They were dated 1

Letter Date !!'.!n,! No.

April 30, 1985 May 3, 1985 June 7, 1985 July 15, 1985 Auguet 8, 1985 Auguet 19, 1985 September 6, 1985

LRR LRR LRR LRR LRR LRR LRR

J-5692 J-5692-A J-5692-B J-5692-C J-5692-D J-5692-! J-5692-r

It ecarcely eeema reasonable, after all thia notifi­cation, and after the vork ia already virtually all done, and done vith your full knowledge and purauant to your inapection, for you nov to auggeat an alternate cover ayate11.

we would ai•ply point out that had you raieed thia concern 21s yeara ago, ve could have addreaaed it. At thia point, it ia too late to incorporate it in the plane.

Without regard to that, ve ehould etreaa, hovever, in our viev, in the viev of our experts, and in the viev evidently of the State'a experts, all of vh011 have great fuiliarity with the dte, the cover plana are eatiafactory and adequate. other­viae the State would not have entered into the Coneent Agree•nt end otherwiee Wehran would not have drafted and endoraed it.

4. Lack of Low PenMability Cap in Certain Areaa.

Once again, we have the proble• that you bad theee plana eince June 1983 and it ia a little late to aake theae eo_.nte in xovellber , 1985. Purthermore, the iaaue raieed waa explicitly addreeeed. in a written analyaia. by Wehran given you at that ti•e and incorporated in the Court Order . You wil 1 recall that in 1983 Wehr an did a water balance atudy and found that the entire contribution wae negligible.

PurthertiiOre, it appears in thia regard that there 1a nothing known now that waa not equally well known 21s yean ago when we gave you our calculations.

In any caee, the concern• you voice have not been our experience at tbie eite.

Regarding gaa generation which may overetress vegeta­tive cover, thb baa not been a problem in the past. After a

Mr. John R. Moebea Apr il 25 , 1986 Page Ten

few falae at arta , our alopea are now in atable condition except for a few apota. OUr experience baa been that the alopea in queation have gone through eome eevere weather condition• and withatood. erodon with minimum uintenance. Thil Spring we intend to redo certain apota and improve othera . We do in­tend to take a cloae look at gaa migration now that all of the planned liner 11 on the lite. If the liner force• 1110r e gaa out t heae aide alopea before our gaa r ecover/control pr oject 11 f ully operationa l , we wil l take appropriate atepa.

5. !xcenive Slopea.

Once again, you had our plana back in June 1983 . rurthe r110re, we did not add any ateepnen Iince . If anyth i ng, the alopea are leaa ateep now.

Suffice it to aay that it 11 a little late to auggeat different alopea, after the project 11 virtually coaplete.

You raiae varioua theoretical queationa.

However, the beat evidence ia our actual experience at thil lite , and our lite-apacific experience hu been favorable doing it our way.

Aa to co...nt (a), you voice a concern about ..intain­ing v19etation on alopea. 'l'he fact 11, we have aucceaafully dona thil at thil dte, and we have dona it for yaara.

Aa to cOBHnt (b), thil again haa never been our experience, and we've been working thia lite Iince 1974 . Aa noted, furthermore, the alopea uaed to be ateeper.

Aa to co...nt (c), we calculated the Oniveraal Soil Lou equation baaed on actual conditiona and ca111 out with a figure well within the racoamended uxiflwn . We reapectfully auggaat that your figurea are baaed on a a aWDptiona that do not cloaely enough r eflect actual conditione .

Be lidea the fact that you had all thil informat i on back i n 1983 , let ua focu a on our a ctua l experience. We have had actual experie nce with thil Iince a t l e alt 1979, and our experience 11 t hat we have not had lignificant erolion problema. rurt her110r e , where wa've hadgood. vegetation , we 've had no er oaion problems , and we ' ve reached a point where we have con­aiatently good vegetation .

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, 1986 Page Eleven

Further, we vould remind you that we have aet aaide in Zacrov in ac cord with the Court Order a large AJIK)Uftt of ~taney for long ter• aaintenance,

You allude to RI OEM regulationa . You ahould recollect that the RI DEM approved theae plana1 and in the Conaent Decree which the OEM aigned, the OEM indicated that the plana were in accord with all applicable regulationa.

6. Benchea.

We are trying to inatall benchea, but we are alao re­aerving judgment on them becauae our initial reaulte were not aatiafactory. Our eroaion reaulta on the back alopea th.at were well vegetated were better than our eroaion reaul ta on the firat aeriea of benchea we inatalled. We have not given them a fair teat, however, aince the vegetation waa not well eatab­liahed on the new alopea.

(a.) We will obtain thia infor11ation fro• our conaultant and pa.. it on to you.

(b.) You ehould now have theee detaila. They were on the laat aet of detail plana we forwarded to you .

(c.) We will get thia infor..tion fr011 our conaultant and forward it to you .

7. Underdraina .

(a) We will get thia infor•ation fr011 our conaultant and forward it to you.

(b) Since the landfill waa cloaed before we reached the deaign elevation there ia no aide elope at elevation 370 aince that ia nov the very top of the landfill . Thia eli•inated the 370 drain. 'l'he 340 and 310 draina are ahown on the plana and partly inatalled. On the north elope they are not ahovn becauae we put the alope in at le.. than 3 Horizontal to 1 Vertical and on the northeaatern and eaatern alopea they were never propoaed becauae the elopes were not lined.

(c) 'l'he latest plan reviaion ahowa theae draina. We made the deciaion to inatall theae drain• in the field during a field viait by Dave Webater . He queationed what waa going to happen to the water on top of the

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, 1986 Page Twelve

liner that drained toward the unlined elopea. We decided it waa a good idea and put thea in then during our covering operation. The plana have now caught up to what we did in the field.

(d) The filter fabric doea wrap entirely around the pipe. The firet aection of pipe ve inatalled had no filter fabric aince ve were adviaed it probably did not need any aince the aand vaa courae. We intend to check thb aection of pipe thh epring to aake eure it b not plugged and it ia free flowing. If it ia not free flowing we will replace it.

(e ) We thought ve had ao indicated in Wehren'• letter to you of Auguat 30, 1983 . we will be happy to forward you a l etter to Richard Peluao indicating that he ia reaponaible for thia, if you would like it . If Wehren vaa not there on October 1, 1985, it vaa becauae they bad juat been there or were going to be there ahortly.

8. Drainage .

t'heee detail• are in the laat package of plana, epee• and calculationa you received with our Deceaber 3, 1985 letter to ThOIUI Bpatein.

9. Gae Collection Syete•.

We are in the proceaa of developing -are detaih on the gaa collection eyete•.

(a) our experience hae indicated that bubbling of the liner ie not a proble• at thh lite. OUr experience hae been in inetalling the liner, that if you aake eure the liner ie flat on the ground when it i• cove red, you never have a proble11. When ve covered areae where the liner wae eealad all around and the liner wae bubbled way up due to gae, our Staff inapector ehowed u1 how to cut a patch out of the liner to allow the gae to eacape. When the liner vu all covered with u• of aand, except for the part that had to be patched, we would hault the dozer, patch the flat liner and quickly cover the patch with u• of eand. 100\ of the time thil wae effective and the gae never bubbled up the liner through the eand. The gu pre..ure h preaently being vented around theu• gae welll we have in.talled and pouibly around the outside edge of the liner.

Hr. John R. Moebes April 25, 1986 Page Thirteen

(b) This should now be shown on our last set of prints.

10. Quality Control/Quality Auunnce fOA/QC) Inseectionsz

We are forwarding to you under aeparate cover our letter to Wahran which aatisties this quution. With regard to the Statf QA/OC inspections, another batch of these for•• was aent out with our Novelllber 8, 1985 Progress Letter. There were fifteen fonns dealing with 26 panels. Staff atilt owes us the balance of aheete. We will forward them to you.

We would like to streu that both we ancS our experts believe ancS continue to believe that the Consent Agreement en­Ured aa a Court Order on July 13, 1983 provicSaa for the cloaura of the site in an anvirol\l'llentally souncS unner. ·

rurther110re, the State has aubllitted affidavit• to the Court to the .... effeet.

The Director of the RI DEH h charged by law with the protection of the envirofliMint and public health. There would appear to be an irrefutable presWiption that he applied that standard when he entered into that Conaent Agree..nt and Court Order.

At thh point the Conaent Agree..nt and Court Order of July 13, 1983 haw now been subatantially fulfilled.

We would also call to your attention the fact that the Court Order of July 13, 1983 has now beca.a a final order.

You ..y not be aware of it, but the 'l'own 's appeal has now been dismissed. A copy of the dis11inal atipulation is attached , Therefore the Court Order now constitutes the law of the caae.

In that context, we would like to be considered for de-listing.

We would auggeat that our coMpliance with the Court Order, our responae to your July 26, 1983 letter and further technical co...ents which we have incorporated, and the volWDea of intonation and inveatigation we have aupplied would allow us to be de-liated.

Mr. John R. Moebea April 25, U86 Page Fourteen

We think it 11ight be helpful to Met with you and the State on the above, and ve reapectfully requeat a Meting.

Reapectfully aubmitted,

Landfill ' Reaource Recovery, Inc

Mr. Merrill Boha&n Mr. John Gallagher Charlee McKinley, l eq .

dntii/A