United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes
National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA 905-R94-006
May 1994
o-EPA Assessment and
Remediation
Of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS) Program
POLLUTANT LOADINGS
TO THE BUFFALO RIVER
AREA OF CONCERN FROM
INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE
SITES
(•) United States Areas of Concern
0 ARCS Priority Areas of Concern
-------
pollutant Loadings to the Buffalo River
Area of Concern from
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
Final Report - December, 199 J
prepared for
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Marc L. Tuchman, Project Officer
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
prepared by
Stewart W. Taylor
Great Lakes Program
Department of Civil Engineering
207 Jarvis Hall
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14260
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5.Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevarjj, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). It has been subject to peer review by the USEPA and
has been approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
An analysis is presented which identifies inactive hazardous wastes sites contributing one
or more targeted pollutants (PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, metals) to the Buffalo River Area of
Concern via groundwater flows and estimates the associated pollutant loadings. Based on a
review of existing data, six sites are identified which likely contribute pollution to the Buffalo
River: Allied Chemical, Buffalo Color, Lehigh Valley Railroad, MacNaughton-Brooks,
Madison Wire, and West Seneca Transfer Station. Other sites are identified (Tifft Farm Nature
Preserve and Houghton Park) which might potentially be contributing pollutants to the Buffalo
River, but data are not sufficient to allow estimation of loadings from these sites.
The principal targeted pollutants present at the identified sites include copper, iron, lead,
and PAHs. While PCBs are present at low levels in the soils at three sites and the pesticide
chlordane present at a low level at one site, these chemicals were not detected in the
groundwater. Available data suggests that PCB and pesticide pollution of the Buffalo River via
the groundwater pathway does not appear to be significant; therefore, loadings for these
chemicals are not evaluated. It is also noted that several of the identified sites likely contributing
significant quantities of non-targeted volatile and semi-volatile organic and metal pollutants to
the Buffalo River in addition to those targeted in the present study.
Pollutant loadings to the Buffalo River are estimated using mathematical models for
contaminant transport by groundwater. An analytical model is applied at the Allied Chemical,
Lehigh Valley Railroad, MacNaughton-Brooks, Madison Wire and West Seneca Transfer Station
sites, while a numerical model is applied at the Buffalo Color site. These models are
parameterized using published data and literature values. Computed metal loadings for
individual sites range as follows: copper, 0 to 78.6 kg/yr; iron, 0 to 1,620 kg/yr, and lead, 0 to
2.09 kg/yr. Computed PAHs loadings are as follows: benzo(a)anthracene, 0.223 kg/yr;
benzo(b)fluoranthene, 0.0709 kg/yr; benzo(k)fluoranthene, 0.0081 kg/yr; benzo(a)pyrene,
0.0192 kg/yr; and chrysene, 0.0304 kg/yr. Decreasing the uncertainty associated with these
loading estimates will require site specific field investigations.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction J
1.1 Background J
1.2 Objectives and Scope *
1.3 Approach ~
2. Regional Geology and Hydrogeology 2
3. Site Identification -|
3.1 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites in Buffalo River AOC 4
3.2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites With Targeted Contaminants 8
3.3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Discharging to the Buffalo River 14
3.4 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites and Non-Targeted Pollutants 18
4. Loading Estimate Methodology 19
4.1 Plane Dispersion Model 19
4.1.1 Governing Equation and Solution 19
4.1.2 Parameterization 20
4.2 Method of Characteristics Model 24
4.2.1 Governing Equation and Solution 24
4.2.2 Parameterization 24
5. Results 49
5.1 Allied Chemical, Lehigh Valley, MacNaughton-Brooks, Madison Wire, West
Seneca • 49
5.2 Buffalo Color 49
6. Discussion 57
6.1 Pollutant Loadings via Groundwater 57
6.2 Uncertainty Associated with Loading Estimates 58
6.3 Pollutant Loadings via Other Pathways 59
7. Summary and Recommendations 59
8. References 62
-------
l. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
On May 1,1990, the Great Lakes Program of the State University of New York at
Buffalo and the Center for Environmental Research and Education at the State University
College at Buffalo entered into a cooperative agreement with the Great Lakes National Program
Office of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to provide field, laboratory and
engineering support for the Buffalo River Mass Balance Project The work scope of this project
includes estimates of pollutant loadings to the Buffalo River Area of Concern (AOC) from
industrial and municipal wastewater discharges, inactive hazardous waste sites, combined sewer
outfalls, and upstream tributaries. This report summarizes the pollutant loadings to the Buffalo
River AOC from inactive hazardous waste sites.
1.2 Objectives and Scope
Primary study objectives include: (1) identification of inactive hazardous waste sites
which may be contributing one or more targeted pollutants to the Buffalo River AOC through
groundwater flows; and (2) estimation of the groundwater pollutant loadings (dissolved phase)
from the identified inactive hazardous waste sites to the Buffalo River AOC.
The scope of this study is limited to a list of pollutants targeted by the USEPA. The list
includes a number of hydrophobic organic chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenlys
(PCBs), 3 pesticides, and 5 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and 3 metals. Specific
chemicals and some of their properties are summarized in Table 1.1. Iron, a conventional
parameter in this study, has been included in the list due to evidence of high groundwater
concentrations. While many other organic and inorganic pollutants are present at some waste
sites, and are contributing significantly to the pollution of the Buffalo River, loading estimates
for these non-targeted pollutants are not within the present work scope.
Loading estimates are provided for dissolved phase pollutants only. Data at the Buffalo
Color Corporation site suggest the presence of nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) contamination
of the subsurface. Estimating the potential loadings to the Buffalo River from NAPL migration
is beyond the scope of this investigation.
Note that the identification of inactive hazardous waste sites and pollutant loading
estimates are based on data that were available in the form of Phase I, Phase II, Remedial
Investigation and other studies prepared for the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC). The preliminary nature of this study precluded site-specific field
work which might better characterize the hydrogeology and extent of off-site migration of the
targeted pollutants for the various waste sites.
-------
Table 1.1. Pollutants of concern and their chemical properties (chemical
properties from USEPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Treatability Data Base, and Lyman et al., 1990).
Chemical Name
PCBs
Total
Pesticides
Chlordane
Dieldrin
D.D'-DDT
PAHs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Metals
Copper
Iron
Lead
Water Solubility
(Mg/L)
0.46 to 7,000
56
186
3.1
44
3.8
14
1.6
6
-
Henry's Constant
(atm-m^/mole)
9e-6 to 2.5e-4
4.79e-5
5.84e-5
3.89e-5
7
4.90e-7
1.19e-5
?
1.05e-6
-
LogKow
4.33 to 7. 13
2.78
4.09
6.19
5.61
5.98
6.57
6.84
5.61
-
1.3 Approach
The approach taken in this study was to (1) identify inactive hazardous waste sites which
likely contribute one or more of the targeted pollutants to the Buffalo River via the groundwater
pathway, and (2) quantify the associated pollutant loadings (mass per unit time). Candidate sites
were identified using existing soils and groundwater data. Pollutant loadings were estimated
using groundwater pollutant transport models. The complexity of the groundwater modeling
effort was commensurate with available data, i.e., numerical model studies were performed at
sites where the hydrogeology is well-characterized, while simple engineering analyses were
performed at sites where data are sparse.
2. REGIONAL ftKOT.OGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The surficial geology of this region is described by Muller (1977) and the bedrock
geology by Buehler and Tesmer (1963). The regional hydrogeology is described by La Sala
(1968). Additional descriptions are given in the various Phase I, Phase n and Remedial
Investigation Reports for sites within the AOC.
The Buffalo River AOC lies within the Erie-Niagara basin and the Erie-Ontario lowland
physiographic province. Approximately 10,000 years ago, the Lake Erie plain was covered by
glacial lakes ancestral to the present Lake Erie. This area consists of smooth to gently rolling
hills which rise in elevation toward the south to 1,000 ft MSL.
-------
Overburden in the region is comprised of unconsolidated, poorly sorted glacial till and
moraine deposits and clay-rich lacustrine deposits, which lie unconformably over sedimentary
bedrock. These units form a thin mantel over bedrock. As the ancestral glacial lakes retreated,
beach sands were deposited. Recent alluvium is present also at sites immediately adjacent to the
Buffalo River, derived by the re-working of the flood plain by the river.
Bedrock in this region is exclusively sedimentary, consisting of shale, limestone, and
dolomite of the Silurian and Devonian Periods. Bedrock units dip southward at approximately
40 ft/mi. Formations underlying the unconsolidated glacial sediments within the Buffalo River
AOC include Onondaga Limestone, Marcellus Shale, and Skaneateles Shale. The Onondaga
Limestone, which is approximately 108 ft thick and consists of a gray, cherty limestone, is
Devonian in age and unconformably overlies the upper Silurian formations. The Marcellus
Shale is 30 to 50 ft thick and consists of a black, dense fissile shale. The Skaneateles Shale is 60
to 90 ft thick and consists of olive gray, gray and black, fissile shale with some calcareous beds
and pyrite.
Significant amounts of groundwater occur in the overburden and the some of the lower
bedrock units. The glacial sediments and glaciolacustrine sediments have very low hydraulic
conductivities, due to their high silt and clay contents. Beach sand deposits have relatively high
hydraulic conductivities, but they are generally too discontinuous to transmit sufficient water for
industrial or domestic use. The recent alluvium also exhibits relatively high hydraulic
conductivities. These glacial and alluvial deposits are the water-bearing zones of interest in the
present study.
Of the bedrock formations underlying the AOC, only the Onondaga Limestone formation
is an aquifer. Groundwater in the Onondaga Aquifer moves through solutions channels formed
along fractures, vertical joints, and bedding planes and yields of up to 100 gal/min have been
reported (Staubitz and Miller, 1987). Only minor amounts of groundwater are found in the
overlying Marcellus Shale and Skaneateles Shale, and only minor groundwater transmission
occurs along small fractures. In the southern portion of Erie County, these shale formations
behave as aquitards and aquicludes.
3. SITE IDENTIFICATION
Inactive hazardous waste sites which may be contributing one or more of the targeted
pollutants to the Buffalo River through groundwater flows were identified by a tiered screening
process:
(1) Sites within or adjacent to the Buffalo River AOC and having some potential for
contaminant migration were identified.
(2) Sites identified in (1) were further screened for the presence of the targeted pollutants in
subsurface soils and groundwater. Sites were identified for which the targeted pollutant
levels were present in the groundwater and in excess of the background levels and/or
water quality standards.
(3) Groundwater levels for the sites identified in (2) were examined to determine regional
flow patterns. Sites for which groundwater flows discharge to the Buffalo River were
identified.
-------
Loading estimates were then performed for sites identified by the screening procedure.
Details of the site identification process are given below.
3.1 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites in Buffalo River AOC
The Buffalo River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) developed by NYSDEC (1989) lists 32
inactive hazardous waste sites in the Buffalo River watershed, 18 of which may be potential
contributors of pollution to the Buffalo River AOC. Locations of all sites are given in Figures
3.1 and 3.2, and some characteristics for the 18 sites local to the AOC are summarized in Table
3.1.
Included in Table 3.1 is an assessment for contaminant migration potential as determined
by the RAP, based on data available at the time of its publication. Contaminant migration was
"confirmed" at one site, "indicated" at four sites, "not indicated" at five sites, and
"indeterminable" at eight sites. Sites for which contaminant migration was "not indicated" were
eliminated and included: Ameron, Bengart & Memel, Inc., Houdaille Industries Manzell
Division, Mobile Oil Corporation, and Mollenburg-Betz Machine. Also, sites where
contaminant migration was deemed "indeterminable" were eliminated in the absence of soil or
water quality data, i.e., no studies beyond the Phase I level exist Environmental sampling is
usually not within the work scope of these preliminary studies. Therefore, the following sites
were eliminated from further consideration in this study: Clinton-Bailey, Tifft-Hopkins, and U.
S. Steel Eastern Division. Finally, the Erie-Lackawana Railroad site was removed from
consideration since it has been de-listed from the "Registry- of Inactive Hazardous Waste
Disposal Sites in New York State" subsequent to the preparation of the RAP (personal
communication, Martin Doster, NYSDEC, August 15,1991).
-------
Fig. 3.1. Location of inactive hazardous waste sites within the
Buffalo River AOC (after NYSDEC, 1989).
-------
Buffalo River
Area of Concern Map
Fig. 3.2. Location of inactive hazardous waste sites within the
Buffalo River watershed (after NYSDEC, 1989).
-------
Table 3.1. Characteristics of inactive hazardous wastes sites local to
the Buffalo River AOC
Site Name
Allied
Chemical Ind.
C jem. Div.
Anieron
Bengart &
Memel, Inc.
Buffalo Color
Corp.
Clinton-Bailey
Donner Hanna
Coke
Erie-Lackwana
Railroad
Houdaille Ind.
Manzell Div.
Hougbton Park
Lehigh Valley
Railroad
MacNaughton-
Brooks
Madison Wire
Mobil Oil
Corp.
Mollenberg-
Betz Machine
Tif f t Farm
Nature
Preserve
Tifft-Hopkins
St.
U.S. Steel
Eastern Div.
West Seneca
Transfer
Station
Site
Number
915004
915133
915115
915012
915126
915017
915021
915037
915059
915071
915034
915036
915040
915041
915072
915131
915113
915039
Years in
Operation
1930-1977
1960-1983
1950-1978
1960-1976
unknown
1951-1975
unknown
7-1978
7-1973
unknown
1960-1966
7-1982
1951-1976
7-1978
1940s-
1973
unknown
1917-1979
1930s-
1970
Size
lac
lac
1 ac
2ac
12 ac
20 ac
NA
lac
15 ac
20 ac
lac
1 ac
Sac
1 ac
260 ac
2.3 ac
lac
10 ac
Distance to
Buffalo
River
50ft
6,600ft
5,000ft
adjacent
3,500ft
2,000ft
5,700 ft
4,000ft
100ft
500ft
800ft
3,800 ft
adjacent
2,000ft
500ft
4,000ft
100ft
200ft
Remediation
Status
Phase II
Remediation
underway
Remediated
Remedial
Investigation
Phase I
Phase II
Phase I
?
Phase I
Phase II
Phase II
Remedial
Investigation
Phase n
Phase I
Phase II
Phase I
underway
Phase I
Phase II
Contaminant
Migration
Potential
Indicated
Not Indicated
Not Indicated
Confirmed
Indeterminable
Indeterminable
Indeterminable
Not Indicated
Indicated
Indeterminable
Indicated
Indicated
Not Indicated
Not Indicated
Indeterminable
Indeterminable
Indeterminable
Indeterminable
-------
3.2 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites With Targeted Contaminants
Sites identified in the previous section as having some potential for contaminant
migration were further screened for presence of the targeted pollutants in both soils and
groundwater at elevated concentrations using the data in Phase II, Remedial Investigation and
other studies prepared for the NYSDEC. The data sources used for each site assessment are
given in Table 3.1. Soil concentrations for metals were considered elevated if observed values
exceeded the typical background range for soils of this region as reported by Shacklette and
Boemgen (1984). Groundwater concentrations for metals and organics were considered elevated
if observed values exceeded the NYSDEC Class GA water quality standard (NYSDEC, Water
Quality Regulations Title 6, Chapter 10, Part 703.5).
Results are summarized in Table 3.2 which reports the observed pollutant concentrations
range and frequency of detection in both soils and groundwater. For example, measured
chrysene concentrations in the soils at the Buffalo Color site ranged from 0.35 to 180 mg/kg and
the chemical was detected in 6 out of the 43 soil samples analyzed. Elevated concentrations, i.e.,
those exceeding the NYSDEC Class GA water quality standards are highlighted. A review of
Table 3.2 shows the primary soil and groundwater contaminants to be metals and PAHs with
isolated occurrences of PCBs and the pesticide chlordane.
Copper, iron, and lead are present at elevated levels in both soils and groundwater at
virtually all sites. Concentrations are often well in excess of expected background levels in soils
and the Class G A standards. Iron concentrations appear to be universally high. It is not clear
from the data available if these levels are attributable to waste disposal practices, or if the iron
concentrations in the soil and groundwater are naturally high for this region.
PAHs are present in the soils of 6 sites, including Buffalo Color, Donner Hanna Coke,
Houghton Park, Lehigh Valley Railroad, Madison Wire, and Tifft Farm Nature Preserve. In the
groundwater, however, PAHs were detected at only the Buffalo Color site. The lack PAHs in
the groundwater at sites where the chemicals are prevalent in the soils is attributed to the high
affinity of the PAHs for soil-associated organic carbon. A simple order-of-magnitude analysis
can be made using the partitioning theory for hydrophobic organic chemicals (Karickhoff,
1984). At equilibrium, the solid phase concentration, S, is related to the water phase
concentration, C, as
(3.1) S = KpC
where Kp = partition coefficient. The magnitude of Kp can be estimated as
(3.2) Kp = 0.63Kowfoc
where Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient; and foc = soil fraction organic carbon.
Assuming a Log Kow = 6 to be representative of PAHs and a typical value of foc = 0.01, an
expected groundwater concentration can be computed from (3.1) and (3.2) given a soil
concentration. A perusal of Table 3.2 shows a typical PAH subsurface soil concentration to be
on the order of 1 mg/kg. The corresponding groundwater concentration is computed to be 0.16
/ig/L. Values of this magnitude (parts per trillion) are usually below the contract detection limit
for most inactive hazardous waste site investigations and small enough to be negligible in terms
-------
of groundwater transport. Therefore, PAH loading estimates were made only for the Buffalo
Color site where there is evidence of groundwater migration.
PCBs were detected at low levels in the soils of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, Tifft Farm
Nature Preserve, and West Seneca Transfer Station Sites. Soil concentrations are on the order of
1 mg/kg which is well below the level constituting hazardous waste. No PCBs were detected in
the groundwater, probably due to the hydrophobic nature of these chemicals. Of the pesticides,
only chlordane was detected in one soil sample of the MacNaughton-Brooks site. No chlordane
was found in the groundwater. Otherwise, there is no evidence of pesticide contamination at the
waste sites examined. In view of the presently available data, there appears to be only very
limited PCB and pesticide contamination of the inactive hazardous waste sites of concern and no
evidence of groundwater migration. Therefore, these pollutants were not considered in
groundwater loadings to the Buffalo River.
In summary, one or more of the targeted metals were detected in the groundwater at the
following sites: Allied Chemical, Buffalo Color, Donner Hanna Coke, Houghton Park, Lehigh
Valley Railroad, MacNaughton Brooks, Madison Wire, Tifft Farm Nature Preserve, and West
Seneca Transfer Station. PAHs were detected in the groundwater only at the Buffalo Color site.
-------
Pollutant
NA = not analyzed
ND - not detected
Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Total PCBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
p.p'-DDT
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Metals
Copper
Iron
Lead
Allied Chemical Ind. Chem. Div.
Soil Concentrations
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Groundwater
Concentrations
(ug/U
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
Buffalo Color Corporation
Surface Soil
Concentrations
(mo/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
180(1/9)
140 (1/9)
140 (1/9)
140 (1/9)
180 (1/9)
Subsurface Soil
Concentrations
(mo/ka)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1-6.7(4/34)
0.17-5.5(7/34)
1.6-9.7(4/34)
ND (34/34)
0.35-8.2 (5/34)
Groundwater
Concentrations
(uo/L)
ND (35/35)
ND (35/35)
ND (35/35)
ND (35/35)
iV.tOilSCW
F >*,«##»>,
ttxTM|(W-
&*'MMictae)'x :
*.' * <*&11 (4/35V ,
30-290 (4/6) . M*&$99 ®t$ '* ^ e-4<#0 C^^),«%^jQqA3^3Ji)
r&&**»#* tawwto'- : i,i«»^^''wd4ww
- IK* - - «wr *>> \ ; wv A >:\t ' (3S/35) **
t 32.2-200(3/6) 8.0-27.300(9/9) ^.4-83.20d(34/94iH 8-2,670(28^5^
-------
Table 3.2. Summary of pollution at inactive hazardous waste sites.
Pollutant
NA = not analyzed
ND = not detected
Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Total PCBs
Chlordane
L'iekJrin
p.p'-DDT
Porycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Metals
Copper
Iron
Lead
Donner Hanna Coke
Subsurface Soil
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
ND (1/1)
ND (1/1)
ND (1/1)
ND (1/1)
0.12 (1/5)
0.079 (1/5)
0.12 (1/5)
0.12 (1/5)
0.24 (1/5)
47.3 (1/1)
53.5-8,100 (5/5)
150(1/1)
Groundwater
Concentrations
(ug/L)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
Houghton Park
Subsurface Soil
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
ND (20/20)
NA
NA
NA
8.7 (1/1)
17(1/1)
22 (1/1)
6.3(1/1)
14(1/1)
1 1-85 (5/6) i'11£»1#9Q iWm ''
6»,30d,000 '(6/6) NA
ff
96.4 (1/6) * 1,05-2.740 (20/2d)
Groundwater
Concentrations
(uoA)
ND (7/7)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50-205 (7/7)
NA
23.2-959 (7/7)" "
Lehigh Valley Railroad
Subsurface Soil
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
1.1-4.1 (3/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
ND (6/6)
0.23-1.4(5/6)
0.15-0.69(2/6)
0.26-0.77 (3/6)
0.28-0.52 (3/6)
0.24-0.72 (4/6)
fM4*10,$6$(WI
4,038*173,000(6/6}
: , ,. - ' ' "-
35.3-280(6/6)
Groundwater
Concentrations
(ug/L)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND(7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND(7/7)
ND (7/7)
^WW066OTF
*&*"-">'"*,' *
8.6 (1/7)
-------
K>
Pollutant
NA = not analyzed
NO = not detected
Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Total PCBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
p,p'-DDT
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Metals
Copper
Iron
Lead
MacNaughton-Brooks
Subsurface Soil
Concentrations
(mq/kg)
ND (2/2)
92 (1/2)
ND (2/2)
ND (2/2)
ND (2/2)
ND (2/2)
ND (2/2)
ND (2/2)
ND (2/2)
0.18-0.44 (2/2)
31.4-65.5(2/2)
1.27-1.28(2/2)
Groundwater
Concentrations
(uo/U
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
ND (3/3)
Madison Wire
Surface Soil
Concentrations
(mo/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.099-17(13/18)
0.058-12(15/18)
0.079-23(17/18)
ND(18/18)
?
Subsurface Soil
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
ND (40/40)
ND (40/40)
ND (40/40)
ND (40/40)
0.12-17 (12/36)
0.25-14 (13/36)
0.29-15 (14/36)
ND (36/36)
0.26-17 (14/36)
Groundwater
Concentrations
(uo/L)
ND (14/14)
ND (14/14)
ND (14/14)
ND (14/14)
ND (14/14)
ND (14/14)
ND (14/14)
ND(14/14)
ND (14/14)
40-400 (3/3) , &UM.1W (1 W«J< -'18JMW fW«g^ " N (19/19) %'^ir: ^' fBOWi^'*^ *"r (14/14) -,
ND (3/3) ' $5.9-3.220 <1$/l9i '^ttSOO Ofttift !^ > T,6^94 (5/14)
-------
Table 3.2. Summary of pollution at inactive hazardous waste sites.
u>
Pollutant
NA = not analyzed
ND = not detected
Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Total PCBs
Chtordane
Dieldrin
p.p'-DDT
Pofycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Metals
Copper
Iron
Lead
Tifft Farm Nature Preserve
Surface Soil
Concentrations
(mg/kq)
ND-3.1
?
?
?
0.14-32.7
0.01-6.0
0.10-68
?
1.4
Groundwater
Concentrations
(uoA.)
ND(7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
ND (7/7)
- 3*14£70 £?% ND (7/7)
t,4Q > ' ; -
^kVUHfiUW :
-------
3.3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Discharging to the Buffalo River
To evaluate the potential for pollutant migration to the Buffalo River via groundwater
flows for the sites identified above, regional groundwater flow patterns were examined using
groundwater levels reported in NYSDEC investigations. Sites were then identified for which the
groundwater flows discharged to the Buffalo River. The hydrogeology, and groundwater levels
and flow directions for each site are described below.
Allied Chemical Industrial Chemical Division
Based on the Phase H Investigation, the subsurface geology of the Allied Chemical site
can be characterized as 3 to 13 ft of fill overlying up to 50 ft of alluvial and glacial sediments
deposited over limestone bedrock.
Water levels were monitored in 6 wells: 3 shallow wells screened in the shallow,
unconfined aquifer consisting of coarse-grained alluvium, and 3 deep wells screened in the upper
portion of the limestone bedrock aquifer and partially into the overlying, confining glacial till.
Levels in bedrock aquifer wells exceeded those in the shallow, unconfined aquifer. Therefore,
the vertical component of flow is upward and only the flow direction in the shallow, unconfined
aquifer need be considered in this study. Water levels in the shallow, unconfined aquifer
indicates a south-southeasterly flow direction with apparent discharge to the Buffalo River.
Buffalo Color Corporation
The hydrogeology of the Buffalo Color site is much like that of the adjacent Allied
Chemical site. Based on the Remedial Investigation, three major hydrogeologic units exist: (1)
an unconfined, shallow aquifer consisting of fill with an underlying layer of alluvial silt, sand,
and gravel having a saturated thickness of 10 to 18 ft; (2) an underlying aquitard compnsed of
verylow permeability glaciolacustrine deposits and glacial till having a thickness of 35 to 45 ft;
and (3) a confined, deep bedrock aquifer comprised of limestone.
Water levels were monitored in 24 wells, 22 screened in the unconfined, shallow aquifer
and 2 screened in the glacial till of the underlying aquitard. Levels in the aquitard exceeded
those in the unconfined aquifer above, indicating an upward component of flow. Groundwater
levels in the unconfined, shallow aquifer on July 7 and August 16, 1988 show groundwater
discharging to the Buffalo River.
Donner Hanna Coke
Results of the Phase II Investigation for the Donner Hanna Coke site, along with the
adjacent Alltifft Realty site, shows the stratigraphy to be slightly different to that of the Allied
Chemical and Buffalo Color sites. The geology is characterized as 4 to 7 ft of coarse-grained
coke fill overlying 40 ft of lacustrine sediments overlying glacial till deposited over limestone
bedrock. The recent alluvium, present at sites closer to the Buffalo River, is absent at the
Donner Hanna Coke site.
Four wells were monitored, all screened in the unconfined, shallow aquifer which exists
in the fill material and upper portions of the lacustrine sediments. Measured water levels show
groundwater flows to the southwest and southeast with general flow to the south. Regionally,
14
-------
the groundwater flows westerly towards Lake Erie. Without additional data, there does not
appear a groundwater flow component to the Buffalo River.
Houghton Park
Groundwater levels were not monitored at this site as part of the Phase I Investigation.
Because the site is however located adjacent to the Buffalo River, it is likely that groundwater
discharges to the river. However, without measured head gradients and hydraulic conductivities,
groundwater flow velocities and, therefore, pollutant loading rates cannot be estimated.
Lehigh Valley Railroad
The Phase II Investigation for the Lehigh Valley Railroad site shows the presence of fill
overlying lacustrine sediments comprised of inter-bedded silts, clays and sands. Presumably, the
lacustrine sediments are the same as those detected at the adjacent Dormer Hanna Coke site and
at more distal sites. Borings were not advanced sufficiently to define the extent of any
underlying till or bedrock, although fine to medium sands were encountered at the base of two
borings.
An unconfmed, shallow aquifer exists in the lower portions of the fill and upper portions
of the lacustrine sediments. Water levels were measured at 5 wells on-site and 2 wells at the
Tifft Farm site to the west. Since the monitoring wells were completed and screened in different
stratigraphic units, the Phase II Investigation did not attempt to construct a potentiometric map,
but did state that "the groundwater flow direction would appear to be towards the west" or Lake
Erie. In the present analysis, there appears to be groundwater flow to the Buffalo River from the
northern portion of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, while the middle and southern portions likely
flow to the west and Lake Erie. Therefore, contaminants present in the northern part of the site
(iron) will likely migrate towards the Buffalo River.
MacNaugh ton-Brooks
Based on the results of the Phase H Investigation for the MacNaughton-Brooks site, the
subsurface geology can be characterized as 11 ft of fill consisting of sand, gravel, clay, and brick
deposited over lacustrine clay. While no borings were advanced through the lacustrine deposit,
this strata is probably underlain by glacial till deposited over limestone bedrock, as was
determined at the nearby Allied Chemical site.
An unconfmed, shallow aquifer is present in the fill and lacustrine clay. Water levels
were measured in 3 monitoring wells screened in the fill and lacustrine clay on November 24,
1987 and February 18,1988. Data on both dates show groundwater discharging to the southeast
towards the Buffalo River.
Madison Wire
The Remedial Investigation for the Madison Wire site identified the following
sedimentary strata: (1) fill material which consists of silts, clays, bricks, limestone chips, and
metallic debris; (2) an upper heterogeneous unit of recent alluvium composed of gravels sands,
and silty clays; (3) a middle unit of lacustrine clays and silty clays; (4) a lower unit of glacial
15
-------
glacial outwash fonns a deep, confined jiquifen The, mrtUe^^^^^ ±e entir
consideration.
between the marsh and the Buffalo River.
Tifft Farm Nature Preserve
The Phase II Investigation for the Tifft Farm Nature Preserve shows the presence of 5 to
be underlain by shale of the Marcellus Formauon at a depth of about 50 ft
Monitonng wells were installed at 7 locations and «"»"»fefl" ^££4 {£*"
Historical evidence shows that a rather extensive canal system once served this area and
are recommended.
16
-------
West Seneca Transfer Station
Based on the Phase II Investigation for the West Seneca Transfer Station, the geology
can be characterized as fill overlying a sand/silt layer overlying a clay layer deposited over
bedrock. The fill is 0 to 14 ft thick and consists of organic soils and construction and demolition
debris. The underlying sand and silt layer also contains variable amounts of gravel and clay.
Beneath the sand and silt layer is a homogeneous layer of lacustrine gray clay that extends in
depth to bedrock at approximately 30 ft The underlying bedrock, comprised of limestone and
chert and bedrock, is part of the Skaneateles Formation.
Three monitoring wells were installed: two installed and screened in the unconsolidated
sediments, and one installed and screened through the lower portion of the lacustrine clay and
upper portion of the bedrock. Water levels rr-^asured on October 30,1990 show northerly flow
to the Buffalo River.
Summary of Groundwater Discharges
In summary, the available hydrogeological data indicates that grcrmdwater discharges to
the uffalo River at the following hazardous waste sites: Allied Chemic,^, Buffalo Color,
Houghton Park, Lehigh Valley Railroad (northern portion of site), MacNaughton-Brooks, and
West Seneca Transfer Station. At the Madison Wire site, groundwater discharges to a Class D
stream which eventually flows to the Buffalo River. For the Houghton Park site, insufficient
hvdrogeological data exists to allow estimation of pollutant loadings. The sites for which
pollutant loadings were estimated and the targeted pollutants identified at each site are
summarized in Table 3.3.
The sites identified in this study as being contributors of pollution to the Buffalo River
are largely consistent with those identified by a previous USEPA study (Koszalka et al., 1985).
Of the inactive hazardous waste sites within the AOC, Koszalka et al. (1985) identified Allied
Chemical, Buffalo Color, McNaughton-Brooks, and Mobile Oil as having a major potential for
contaminant migration. Mobile Oil was not included in the present study because the Phase n
Investigation completed subsequently to the USEPA study indicated no significant contaminant
migration.
Table 3.3. Summary of targeted pollutants at inactive hazardous
waste sites of concern.
Site
Allied Chemical
Buffalo Color
Lehigh Valley Railroad
MacNaughton-Brooks
Madison Wire
West Seneca Transfer
Organic Pollutants
PAHs
Inorganic Pollutants
Iron, lead
Copper, iron, lead
Iron
Iron
Copper, iron, lead
Iron, lead
17
-------
3.4 Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites and Non-Targeted Pollutants
In addition to the targeted pollutants, a variety of volatile and semi-volatile organics and
metals are present in the groundwater at several of the waste sites which discharge to the Buffalo
River. In fact, the organic pollutants targeted for the present study often represent a small
fraction of the overall site contamination. Loadings of these pollutants are not considered in the
present study; however, these other pollutants may have significant consequences for the long-
term management of the Buffalo River. The principal groundwater pollutants at each site, aside
from those targeted in this study, are summarized in Table 3.4. Inorganic pollutants were listed
if Class GA standards/guidance values were exceeded.
A review of Table 3.4 shows the Buffalo Color site to be one of the more heavily
contaminated sites. Most of the organic contamination appears to consist of simple aromatics,
chlorinated benzenes, and amines. Of the PAHs, only naphthalene is present is significant
quantities. None of the targeted organic pollutants are present in significant quantities in the
groundwater. Most of the metal contamination is attributed to iron, copper, aluminum, zinc,
lead, chromium, and arsenic. Hence, a good case can be made for targeting iron, copper, and
lead in Buffalo River mass balance modeling.
Table 3.4. Summary of principal non-targeted groundwater pollutants at inactive
hazardous waste sites of concern.
Site
Allied Chemical
Buffalo Color
Houshton Park
Lehiah Valley Railroad
MacNaughton-Brooks
Madsion Wire
Tifft Farm Nature Preserve
West Seneca Transfer
Organic pollutants
benzene, toluene
aniline, chlorobenzene,
etbylbenzene, 1-napbtnylamine,
benzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
4-chloroaniline, naphthalene,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, toluene,
2-cbloropbenol, xylene,
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene,
benzidine, phenol
phenols
xvlenes.l.2-dicbloroethene
benzene
1,1-dichloroe thane,
1,2-dichloroethene,
1,1,1-trichloroe thane, toluene,
benzene, ethyl benzene, xylene,
pyrene (trace levels of all)
Inorganic pollutants
cadmium, mercurv, silver
arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
mercury, zinc
barium, cadmium, chromium
manganese
arsenic, barium, magnesium,
manganese
arsenic, chromium, manganese
magnesium, manganese
chromium, magnesium,
manganese, zinc
18
-------
4. LOADING ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY
Loadings of the targeted pollutants to the Buffalo River were estimated for the six
inactive hazardous waste sites identified in Section 3.3. The methodology for making these
estimates was chosen to be commensurate with the level of contamination and availability of
data. Hence, at sites where only Phase n studies have been completed (Allied Chemical, Lehigh
Valley Railroad, MacNaughton-Brooks, West Seneca Transfer Station), loading estimates were
made using a simple, analytically-based model for subsurface contaminant transport. Sites for
which more intensive Remedial Investigations have been completed (Buffalo Color, Madison
Wire) have sufficient data to construct a numerical model for estimating contaminant loadings,
and loadings were generated by numerical modeling for the Buffalo Color site. While sufficient
data exists for modeling the Madison Wire site, there is no evidence of PAHs in the
groundwater, which appear to be the principal contaminants found in the sediments of the
Buffalo River. Loadings for the Madison Wire site were therefore computed with the simple,
analytically-based transport model. A description of both models, as well as the data needed to
parameterized these models, follows.
4.1 Plane Dispersion Model
4.1.1 Governing Equation and Solution
The analytically-based transport model used to compute pollutant loadings to the Buffalo
River is based on the two-dimensional plane dispersion model described by Javandel et al.,
(1984). This model assumes that the aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic and that the x axis is
aligned with the groundwater flow direction, and a strip-type contaminant source of length 2a is
assumed to exist along the y axis (Figure 4.1). The aquifer is also assumed to be initially free of
contamination. For this study, the pollutant is assumed to be a conservative substance, and the
pollutant source concentration is assumed to be constant The governing advection-dispersion
equation and associated auxiliary conditions can then be stated as
ac
(41) R1T
(4.2) C(x,y,0) = 0
(4.3) C(0,y,t) = C0 -a < x < a and C(0,y,t) = 0 otherwise
where:
C = concentration;
R = retardation factor;
= longitudinal dispersion coefficient;
= transverse dispersion coefficient;
V = average linear velocity;
C0 = contaminant source concentration; and
2a = source width.
19
-------
The analytical solution to this system is given as (Javandel et al., 1984):
t/R
(4.5) C(x,y,t) =
Vx I f
:exp|mrl JexPC
- X2/4DLT) T'3/2
j
I
1
f
Fig. 4.1. Schematic diagram showing the two-dimensional
Plane Dispersion Model (after Javandel et al., 1984).
For a source located a distance L from the river, the pollutant flux, J, to the river (mass
per unit area per unit time) is obtained from
(4.6) J(y,t) = = porosity. Total pollutant loading, F, to river (mass per unit time) entails the
integration of J over the vertical aquifer cross-sectional area, A, intersecting the river. Hence,
(4.7) F(t)=
+ 00
/C(L,y,t)dy
-oo
where b = aquifer thickness.
4.1.2 Parameterization
To predict pollutant loadings with the Plane Dispersion Model, a number of physical and
chemical parameters must be known or estimated. These parameters were obtained from the
NYSDEC investigations whenever possible and estimated data from literature sources in the
absence of field data. A summary of the parameters appears in Table 4.1, and a discussion of
how these parameters were estimated is given below.
20
-------
Aquifer thickness (b). Aquifer thicknesses were estimated from well log data provided
in the NYSDEC investigations. At all sites, the aquifer of concern was taken to be the shallow,
unconfmed aquifer existing in the upper portion of the overburden.
Average linear velocity (V). Average linear velocities for each site were estimated from
Darcy's law
<«> v-ff
where:
0 = porosity
K = hydraulic conductivity; and
dh/dl = head gradient.
A porosity of = 0.35 was assumed for all sites which is representative of sandy soils (Morris
and Johnson, 1967). The hydraulic conductivity at each site was computed as the geometric
mean of the measured hydraulic conductivities for the aquifer of concern. Head gradients were
computed from monitoring well water levels by triangulation.
Longitudinal and transverse dispersion coefficients (DL and Dj). Dispersion
coefficients were computed as
(4.9)
(4.10)
where C*L and erf = longitudinal and transverse dispersivity, respectively. No field data were
available to estimate the magnitudes of the dispersivities, and a value of OIL = 10 m and a ratio
of crr/aL = O-1 were assumed from the literature (de Marsily, 1986). Computed transient
pollutant loadings are relatively insensitive to the assumed dispersivity values, and the steady-
state loadings are independent of the dispersivities.
Retardation factor (R). Retardation factors were estimated assuming that adsorption is
reversible and instantaneous. The partitioning of metals between the water and solid phases was
assumed to be governed by the Freundlich isotherm
(4.11) S = kC1/n
where k and n are Freundlich isotherm constants. The retardation factor was evaluated as
(4.12) R=l+
where ps = soil mass density which was assumed to be 2.65 g/cm^. Use of Equation (4. 12) to
21
-------
parameterize the linear Plane Dispersion Model requires that the retardation factor be evaluated
at some constant concentration. The source concentration, C0, was chosen for this purpose.
No data were available to determine site-specific Freundlich constants for the sites under
consideration. Freundlich constants estimated for the Buffalo Color site (Table 4.2) were
therefore adopted in the absence of site-specific data.
Source width (2a) and distance to river (L). These parameters were estimated from
the information provided in NYSDEC investigations. Source widths were taken to be widths of
unlined impoundments, debris piles, etc. which were suspected by the investigators to be
pollutant sources. The down-gradient distances from the suspected pollutant source to the
Buffalo River were estimated from maps provided in the NYSDEC reports.
It should be noted that characterizing the size and location of pollutant sources is a
subjective process, given the limited amount of information available for most of the sites under
study (Remedial Investigation has been performed only for the Madison Wire site). Both
transient and steady-state pollutant loadings are sensitive to the size of the source area. Any
improvement in loading estimates will require better characterization of the pollutant sources.
Source concentration (Co). Source concentrations were estimated as
(4.13) C0 = max[Cmax,(Smax/k)n]
where: Cmax = maximum observed groundwater concentration; and Smax = maximum
observed subsurface soil concentration. The quantity (Smax/k)n represents the groundwater
concentration which would be in equilibrium with the maximum soil concentration. Since soil
borings and monitoring wells are installed in different physical locations, and because soil
boring often outnumber monitoring wells, estimation of the source concentration in the this
fashion increases the probability that the maximum source concentration has been adequately
characterized.
As with source size and location, pollutant loading estimates are sensitive to the source
concentration; any desired improvement in pollutant loadings will require more intensive
environmental sampling.
22
-------
Table 4.1. Summary of Plane Dispersion Model parameters
(n=0.35 assumed for all sites).
Site
Allied Chemical
Lehigh Valley RR
MacNaughton-Brooks
Madison Wire
West Seneca
V
(m/yr)
3.4
66
180
13
36
DL/DT
(m2/yr)
34/3.4
660/66
1,800/180
130/13
360/36
b
(m)
3.4
2
4.7
3
4
L
(m)
80
420
240
50
490
a
(m)
10
60
8
30
150
Chemical
Fe
Pb
Fe
Fe
Cu
Fe
Pb
Fe
Pb
(mg/L)
334
02
120
341
96.1
300
0.38
88.8
0.13
R
6,640
585
6,990
6,640
216
6,680
419
7,100
720
23
-------
4.2 Method of Characteristics Model
4.2.1 Governing Equation and Solution
The Method of Characteristics (MOC) model was used to estimate pollutant loadings to
the Buffalo River from the Buffalo Color site. This numerical model was developed by the U.
S. Geological Survey (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1978; Goode and Konikow, 1989) and is
considered the industry-standard model for simulating two-dimensional solute transport in
groundwater. The model solves the depth-averaged equations governing groundwater now and
solute transport, accounting for adsorption and reaction of the solute. A finite difference method
is used to solve the flow equation, while a hybrid finite difference-characteristics method is used
to solve the solute transport (advective-diffusive-reactive) equation. The governing equations,
model assumptions, and numerical procedures are documented elsewhere (Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 1978; Goode and Konikow, 1989).
To develop pollutant loadings to the Buffalo River, output from the MOC model was
used to compute the pollutant flux along the perimeter of the Buffalo Color site bounded by the
river, BI, as
(4.14) J(x,y,t) = | V(x,y) | C(x,y,t) where x,y G B!
Pollutant loadings were then obtained by integrating J around the perimeter of the site bounded
by the river and over the aquifer thickness. This area is designated as Aj. Thus,
(4.15) F(t)= JldA= J<£|V(x,y)|C(x,y,t)dA where x,y € B!
AI AI
Because of the spatial variations in aquifer thickness, average linear velocities, and
concentrations, the integral defined by Equation (4.15) was computed by summing values over
the finite difference cells forming Bj.
4.2.2 Parameterization
To simulate groundwater flow and pollutant transport at the Buffalo Color site using the
MOC model, parameters describing the modeled domain, boundary and initial conditions,
physical characteristics of the aquifer and chemical properties of the pollutants of concern were
assigned using data given in the Remedial Investigation Report and from literature values. In
developing the model, groundwater flow was assumed to be steady-state, and the aquifer of
concern was taken to be the shallow, unconfined aquifer which consists of alluvial and fill
deposits. Details of the construction and parameterization of the numerical model are given
below.
Domain, and boundary and initial conditions. The portion of the Buffalo Color site
which was modeled is shown in Figure 4.2. Because the site is located on the inside of a
meander bend, most of the site perimeter is bounded by the Buffalo River. Groundwater flows
are therefore highly dependent on the river elevation.
24
-------
Along the boundary defined by the river, designated Bj, a constant-head boundary
condition was specified, i.e.,
(4.16) h(x,y) = h0(x,y) where x,y € BI
A value of h0 = 562.7 ft was prescribed based on river elevations reported in the Remedial
Investigation. Along the remaining portion of the boundary, designated as B2, a constant-flux
boundary condition was specified, i.e.,
(4.17)
where x,y 6 82
This boundary condition is simulated by MOC specifying the flux rate as a well recharge or
discharge rate for nodes along 62- Values of 7 were obtained by adjusting the
recharge/discharge rates at these nodes until a good match between computed and observed
hydraulic heads was achieved.
To obtain the pollutant transport solution, initial concentrations must be specified
throughout the domain R. In this study, the aquifer was assumed to be initially free of
contamination, or
(4.18) C(x,y,0) = 0 where x,y € R
Bl
B2
Fig. 4.2. Modeled domain and boundary conditions for the Buffalo Color Site.
25
-------
Hydrogeological parameters. The physical parameters associated with groundwater
flow and pollutant transport include: porosity (<£), aquifer thickness (b), hydraulic conductivity
(K), longitudinal and transverse dispersivity («L and 07), and the groundwater recharge rate (I).
Porosity, dispersivity, and groundwater recharge were assumed to be constants over the site.
The following values were assumed: <£ = 0.35 (Morris and Johnson, 1967), OTL = 25 ft and 07 =
7.5 ft (de Marsily, 1986), and I = 20.3 in/yr (Buffalo Color Remedial Investigation Report).
Aquifer thickness and hydraulic conductivity were allowed to vary spatially over the
modeled domain. Nodal values of both quantities were estimated by the kriging procedure (de
Marsily, 1986), using stratigraphic information from 12 borings and hydraulic conductivity
measurements at 17 wells. The resulting spatial distributions of b and hi K are given in Figures
4.3 and 4.4, respectively.
Adsorption constants. Adsorption constants are required to quantify the partitioning of
the pollutants between the groundwater and aquifer matrix. The usual procedure for determining
these constants involves experimental determination of the isotherm constants via batch
experiments using site soils, or experimental determination of the retardation factor via column
breakthrough experiments using columns packed with site soils. No such studies have been
conducted; therefore, magnitudes of these constants had to be estimated from literature values
corroborated by a limited amount of field data.
The subsurface field investigation of the Buffalo Color site included the sampling and
analysis of subsurface soils and groundwater. Borings were made to sample subsurface soils at
23 locations, and 8 of these borings were subsequently converted to groundwater quality
monitoring wells. Groundwater was sampled from these wells on two dates (June 23-24,1988
and August 17-18, 1988). Since soils were sampled over depths which were consistent with the
screened depths of the subsequently installed wells, measured soils and groundwater
concentrations at these wells could be used to estimate the equilibrium partitioning of the
pollutants between these two phases. Sufficient information existed to perform this analysis for
the metals, whereas PAHs were not detected with sufficient frequency to repeat this analysis for
these organic chemicals.
Soil concentrations are plotted against groundwater concentrations for copper, iron, and
lead in Figures 4.5,4.6 and 4.7, respectively. Also plotted are the isotherms as fitted by least
squares regression and isotherms obtained from literature sources. For copper the field data
yield a robust estimate of the isotherm constants which indicates copper adsorption at this site is
less than that reported by Mimides and Lloyd (1987). For iron, S and C were relatively poorly
correlated, yet the isotherm obtained by Mimides and Lloyd (1987) passes through the data. The
correlation between S and C for lead is very poor, but most of the data fall below the isotherm
reported by LaBauve et al. (1988). For use in MOC, the estimated Freundlich constants for
copper were adopted because of the good correlation achieved. The literature constants were
adopted for iron, as there is likely no statistical difference between the estimated and literature
constants. For lead the estimated constants were used over the literature values, because they are
conservative with regard to contaminant retardation, i.e., they result in a smaller retardation
factor. Isotherm constants are summarized in Table 4.2.
26
-------
Ftg. 4.3. Saturated aquifer thickness, b (ft) .
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1 200. 00 i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r^n—i—i—i—i—i 1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l\ l\ I I
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
K»
oo
Fig. 4.4. Log hydnoul tc conductivity, In K ( cm/s) .
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200
200.00
- 1000.00
- 800.00
- 600.00
400.00
- 200.00
0.
,00
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X (ft)
-------
10000
1000 -
0>
CO
100 -
10
Mimides and Lloyd (1987)
Present study
Excluded in regression
k - 535, 1/n - 0.573, r2 - 0.672
.01 .1 1
C (mg/L)
Fig. 4.5. Freundlich isotherm for copper (Buffalo Color Site data).
10
29
-------
1000000 -3
100000 -
O)
CO
10000 H
1000
k - 8630, 1/n - 0.438, r2 - 0.306
Mimides and Lloyd (1987)
Present study
Excluded in regression
1 10 100
C (mg/L)
Fig. 4.6. Freundlich isotherm for iron (Buffalo Color Site data).
1000
30
-------
1000
100 -
CD
CO
10 -i
•I
.01
LaBauve et al. (1988)
Excluded in regression
Present study
k - 107, 1/n - 0.481
I I
.1 1
C (mg/Lj
10
Fig. 4.7. Freundlich isotherm for lead (Buffalo Color Site data).
31
-------
Table 4.2. Freundlich isotherm constants for C[mg/L] and S[mg/kg].
Adopted values are in bold.
Metal
Copper
Iron
Lead
Source
Mimides and Lloyd (1987)
Present study
Mimides and Lloyd (1987)
Present study
LaBauve et al. (1988)
Present study
k
15,700
535
1,900
8,630
2,660
107
1/n
0.57
0.573
0.95
0.438
0.48
0.481
Adsorption constants for the PAHs were initially estimated by applying equilibrium
partitioning theory for hydrophobic organic chemicals as described by Karickhoff (1984). For
relatively low water phase pollutant concentrations, the equilibrium adsorption isotherm is
linear, i.e.,
(4.19) S = KpC/pw
where:
Kp = 0.63 Kow foc = partition coefficient;
KOW = octanol-water partition coefficient;
foc = fraction organic carbon; and
pw = mass density of water.
The corresponding retardation factor may be obtained as
(4.20) R=l
Using the Kow given in Table 1.1 and assuming foc = 1 %, retardation factors were computed
for the PAHs and are summarized in Table 4.3.
Retardation factors on the order of 104 to 105 result, suggesting that the PAHs are
essentially immobile under the equilibrium assumption. However, experimental and theoretical
investigations have shown that hydrophobic organic chemicals having octanol-water partition
coefficients in excess of 10^ may require on the order of months to years to obtain true
equilibrium (Wu and Gschwend, 1986; Coates and Elzerman, 1986). Given the proximity of the
PAH sources to the Buffalo River and the relatively short groundwater residence times, PAHs
introduced into the groundwater probably will not achieve sorption equilibrium. Hence, the
assumption of equilibrium partitioning is likely invalid and the retardation of the PAHs will be
much less than indicated in Table 4.3. For purposes of estimating PAH loadings, it was
therefore assumed that no retardation of the PAHs would occur.
32
-------
Table 4.3. PAH partition coefficients and retardation factors.
PAH
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Kp
2,570
23,400
43,600
6,020
2,570
R
12,600
115,000
215,000
29,600
12,600
Pollutant Sources. To simulate pollutant loadings to the Buffalo River, pollutant source
locations, source concentrations, and source flux rates are required. Pollutant sources were
identified from the observed surface and subsurface soil and groundwater pollutant
concentrations given in the Remedial Investigation Report. Potential source areas are shown in
Figure 4.8 and concentrations are mapped in Figures 4.9 through 4.20 for a selected PAH
(benzo(a)anthracene), copper, iron, and lead. Maximum pollutant concentrations for these
source areas are summarized in Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
Comparison of potential source areas with observed soil and groundwater concentrations
show that several sources of these pollutants likely exist within the Buffalo Color site. PAH
sources are found within the Weathering Area, the West Shore Area, Tank Parks 910 and 912,
and the Iron Oxide Sludge Lagoon Area. The Tank Park 910 source is notable because a layer
of light NAPL, approximately 6 ft thick and partially comprised of PAHs, floats atop the
groundwater at this location. Copper sources are found within the Iron Oxide Sludge Lagoon
Area, the Incineration Area, the Weathering Area. Principal iron sources include the Iron Oxide
Sludge Lagoon Area, the Weathering Area, and the West Shore Area. Lead sources are found in
the Weathering Area, the Incineration Area, Tank Park 912, the Iron Oxide Sludge Lagoon
Area, and the West Shore Area. An extremely high level of soil lead was detected in Tank Park
912 (83,200 mg/kg).
The source concentration for any given PAH was taken to be its water solubility (see
Table 1.1 for magnitudes). Source concentrations for metals were determined in accordance
with Equation (4.13), i.e., the greater of the maximum observed groundwater concentration or
the groundwater concentration in equilibrium with the maximum soil concentration. The
pollutant flux rate was taken to be the mean annual infiltration rate (I = 20.3 in/yr), because
groundwater contamination occurs primarily by the infiltration of soil leachate.
33
-------
Fig. 4.8. Potential pollutant source areas at the Buffalo Color Site (from Buffalo
Color Corporation Remedial Investigation Report).
34
-------
Flq. 4.9. Surface soil PAH concentrations (mg/kg).
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200.00
1000.00 -
800.00 -
600.00 -
400.00 -
200.00 -
0.00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I i i I I I I I t I I I l\ I I I
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Fig. 4.10. Subsurface soil PAH concen trat Ions (mg/kg).
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 G00.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00^800 00^ ^
1200.00
1000.00 -
- 1000.00
- 800.00
- 600.00
- 400.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
200 00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000-00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( f t)
-------
U)
Ftg. 4.11. Grounduaten PAH concentrations (ug/L) .
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200.00
1000.00 -
800.00 -
600.00 -
400.00 -
200.00 -
0.00
0.00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
200.00
- 1000.00
- 800.00
- 600.00
400.00
^ 200.00
00
200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Ft. 4.12. Surface soil copper concentrations (mg/kg)
00
0 00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00^
1200.00 i | | | | | | | | | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .>...... 14M.W
1000.00 -
800.00 -
600.00 -
400.00 -
200.00 -
l I I I I l l l I i\ l I I
I I I I I I l I I I
- 1000.00
- 800.00
- 600.00
- 400.00
- 200.00
0.00
0<00 00 20000 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.001200.001400.001600.001800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Ftq. 4.13. Subsurface soil copper concentrations ( mg/k g)
VO
0 00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200.00'i | | | | | | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' 1200-00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
il
....... i | I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- 1000.00
- 800.00
- 600.00
- 400.00
- 200.00
0.00
200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Ftg. 4.14. Groundwater copper concentrations (ug/L)
1200.
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1000.00 -
800.00 -
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I h I I I I 0.00
600.00 -
400.00 -
200.00 -
200.00
- 1000.00
- 800.00
- 600.00
- 400.00
- 200.00
' 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X C ft)
-------
F t g . 4 . 1 B . Su rface soil Iron concentrations ( mg /kg).
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
I T 1TTIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l\ I I I I 0.00
200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Flq. 4.16. Subsurface soil Iron concentrations (mg/kg)
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200.00
1000.00 -
1200.00
- 1000.00
- 800.00
- 600.00
- 400.00
- 200.00
0.
,00
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( f t)
-------
Ftq. 4.17. Groundwater Iron concentrations (ug/L).
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
T~T
I I I
I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l\ I I I I 0.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( f t)
-------
Fig. 4.18. Su r f a c e soil lead concentrations ( mg/kg).
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
I T T I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I l\ I I I
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Fig. 4.19- Subsurface soil lead concentrations ( mg/k g)
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1600 00^ ^
1200.00
1000.00 -
800.00 -
600.00 -
400.00 -
200.00 -
0.00
- 1000.00
- 800.00
600.00
- 400.00
- 200.00
0.00
0 00 200 00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400-00 1600-00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Ftq. 4.20. Groundwater lead concentrations (ug/L).
1200.00
1000.00 -
800.00 -
600.00 -
400.00 -
200.00 -
0.00
0.00
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.^00
,oi _^___—^—,—.—.—•—.—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r"^i—i—i i I I 1 2
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
">/ //X
' ' ' ' ' ' '\ I I I ' 0.00
200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
X ( ft)
-------
Table 4 4 Maximum observed PAH concentrations in source areas of
the Buffalo Color Site (ND = not detected).
Benzo(k)
fluranthene
Benzo(b)
fluoranthene
Source
^^^•l^B
Lagoon Area
47
-------
Table 4.5. Maximum observed metal concentrations
in source areas of the Buffalo Color Site.
Lagoon Area
Soil (me/kg)
Water C*g/L)
Incineration Area
Soil (mg/kg)
Water Gig/L)
Weathering Area
Soil (mg/kg)
Water G*g/L)
West Shore Area
Soil (mg/kg)
Water (Mg/L)
Tank Park 913
Soil (mg/kg)
Water (ng/L)
Tank Park 91 IN
Soil (mg/kg)
Water (/zg/L)
Tank Park 9 12
Soil (mg/kg)
Tank Park 91 IS
Soil (mg/kg)
Tank Park 910
Water (/*g/L)
Copper
4,630
27,800
3,580
3,710
14,500
78,700
341
860
134
20
135
234
644
640
25
Iron
537,000
405,000
360,000
80,500
38,900
233,000
300,000
381,000
26,500
30,500
11,900
104,000
46,400
43,000
9,450
Lead
187
3,030
5,520
77
27,300
2,390
77
2,670
221
28
28
179
83,200
323
51
48
-------
5. RESULTS
5.1 Allied Chemical, Lehigh Valley, MacNaughton-Brooks, Madison Wire, West Seneca
Loadings of copper, iron, and lead to the Buffalo River were computed as a function of
time for the named sites using the Plane Dispersion model and parameters described in the
preceding section. Results are presented in Figures 5.1,5.2 and 5.3 and show that loadings
increase with time and asymptotically approach a steady-state value. Fifty percent breakthrough
times, i.e., the time required for the loading to reach one-half the steady value, are seen to be in
excess of 100 years for all metals. For copper 50% breakthrough occurs in about 700 years at
the Madison Wire site. Fifty percent breakthrough times for iron are as follows: 8,000 years for
MacNaughton-Brooks; 20,000 years for Madison Wire; 40,000 years for Lehigh Valley
Railroad; 60,000 years for West Seneca Transfer Station (not shown); and 125,000 years for
Allied Chemical (not shown). For lead 50% breakthrough times were estimated to be as
follows: 1,300 years for Madison Wire; 9,000 years for West Seneca Transfer Station; and
12,000 years for Allied Chemical (not shown).
The results presented in Figures 5.1 through 5.3 show that the time-scales for the
breakthrough of copper, iron and lead to the Buffalo River from sources within the named sites
are on the order of 1,000 to 100,000 years, i.e., these metals are essentially immobile. These
large breakthrough times are consistent with the magnitudes of the estimated retardation factors
which are summarized in Table 4.1. These retardation factors are in turn a function of the
Freundlich isotherm constants which were derived for the Buffalo Color site and assumed to
apply to the named sites. If site-specific values for the retardation factors are significantly less
than those assumed in the present study, breakthrough will occur significantly quicker. Steady-
state loadings will be the same; the retardation factor affects only the transient behavior.
5.2 Buffalo Color
Loadings of the PAHs, copper, iron, and lead to the Buffalo River were computed for the
Buffalo Color site using the MOC model and parameters discussed previously. Loadings are
plotted as a function of time for these chemicals in Figures 5.4 through 5.7.
The PAH loading curves shown in Figure 5.4 indicate 50% breakthrough to the Buffalo
River occurs in about 3 years and steady-state loading is reached in about 15 years. Because the
PAHs were assumed to be non-sorbing over the relatively short groundwater residence times at
this site and all PAH retardation factors were taken to be unity, relative breakthrough is the same
for all PAHs. Also, because contaminant efflux from the site must equal the contaminant influx
at steady-state, the steady-state loadings are proportional to the PAH source concentrations (see
water solubility values in Table 1.1).
Figures 5.5 through 5.7 indicate that the loadings of copper, iron, and lead will be
unsteady for time-scales of environmental interest to the Buffalo River (e.g., 10 to 100 years).
In contrast to the other sites studied, there is some breakthrough of these metals to the Buffalo
River because several of the metal sources are adjacent to the river shoreline. While simulations
were not run beyond 100 years, it is likely that 50% breakthrough would require well in excess
of 100 years as was determined for the Allied Chemical, Madison Wire, Lehigh Valley Railroad
and West Seneca Transfer Station sites.
49
-------
o>
100
80 -
60 -
CO
CO
~ 40 -
20 -
0
1000 2000 3000 4000
t (yrs)
Fig. 5.1. Copper loadings to Buffalo River.
50
-------
Mass Loading
(kg/yr)
O
CD
CD
ro
CD
o
o
OQ
Ut
10
O
p
o
o.
tO
«->
o
to
1—4
O
10
O
CO
O>
CD
CD
OO
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-------
O)
CO
CO
20000
Fig. 5.3 Lead loadings to Buffalo River.
52
-------
0.25
0.20 -
CO
0.15 -
CO
o
<
CL
05
0.10 -
0.05
0.00
Benzofaianthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Benzofalpvrene
Benzofklfluoranthene
10 20
t (yrs)
30
Fig. 5.4. PAH loading to Buffalo River from Buffalo Color.
53
-------
SBgc- 8 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
t (yrs)
Fig. 5.5. Copper loading to Buffalo River from Buffalo Color.
54
-------
20
15 -
0>
cd
o>
10 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
t (yrs)
Fig. 5.6. Iron loading to Buffalo River from Buffalo Color.
55
-------
0.20
0.15 -
CO «-
O >*
0.10 -
O
0.05 -
1 1 1 I I I I I I I ' '
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
t (yrs)
Fig. 5.7. Lead loading to Buffalo River from Buffalo Color.
56
-------
6. DISCUSSION
6.1 Pollutant Loadings via Ground water
Allied Chemical, Lehigh Valley, MacNaughton-Brooks, Madison Wire, West
Seneca. Results obtained from the Plane Dispersion model suggest that the pollutants of interest
(copper, iron, lead) are essentially immobile. However, these results were obtained without the
benefit of site-specific adsorption data, and breakthrough could occur significantly earlier if the
true retardation factors are significantly smaller than those estimated with the best available
information. Given this uncertainty, loadings of these metals can only be bracketed between
zero and the steady-state values, which are summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Lower and upper limits of metal loadings to Buffalo River
as computed by the Plane Dispersion model.
Site
Allied Chemical
Fe
Pb
Lehigh Valley Railroad
Fe
MacNaughton-Brooks
Fe
Madison Wire
Cu
Fe
Pb
West Seneca
Fe
Pb
Lower Loading Limit
(kg/vr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Upper Loading Limit
(kg/"i
26.9
0.0161
665
1,620
78.6
245
0.310
1,340
2.09
Buffalo Color. Results obtained for the Buffalo Color site using the MOC model
indicate that loadings will be transient for time-scales ranging from 1 to 100 years. For purposes
of utilizing the groundwater pollutant loading data in a mass balance model for the Buffalo River
to assess river management alternatives, dates must be assigned to the loadings given in Figures
5.4 through 5.7. In assigning these dates it is assumed that contamination of the subsurface
commenced at the same time in history as the solid waste handling operations commenced at the
Buffalo Color site.
According to the Remedial Investigation Report, heavy metal sludges were de-watered in
the Weathering Area and in the Iron Oxide Sludge Lagoon Area from 1916 to 1976, and
flammable solid and liquid chemical wastes were burned in the Incinerator Area from 1922 to
1972. These areas are the principal sources of copper, iron, and lead contamination at this site.
The history of metallic sludge handling indicates that copper and iron sludges were handled as
early as 1916 and lead sludge as early as 1922. Hence, for copper and iron the time t = 0 in
Figures 5.5 and 5.6 corresponds to 1916, and for lead t = 0 in Figure 5.7 corresponds to 1922.
57
-------
While the history of metals handling is relatively complete, the Remedial Investigation
Report makes reference only to the burning of PAHs (napthalene) in the Incinerator Area.
However, there is little evidence of PAH contamination of this source area (see Figures 4.9,
4.10,4.11). No other reference to the use or disposal of these chemicals is made. It is supposed
that PAHs were likely introduced into the West Shore, Weathering and Iron Oxide Sludge
Lagoon Areas along with metallic sludges which may have originated from the steel industry,
PAHs being a common component of the steel-making waste-stream. If this hypothesis is
correct, then PAHs may have been discharged as early as 1916 to 1922. Given that complete
breakthrough of PAHs to the river was predicted to occur in about 20 years, PAH loadings to the
Buffalo River are likely at their steady-state values. These values, which are recommended for
PAH loadings to the Buffalo River, are summarized in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2. PAH loadings to Buffalo River from the Buffalo Color site
as computed by the MOC model.
PAH
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Loading (kg/yr)
0.223
0.0709
0.00810
0.0192
0.0304
6.2 Uncertainty Associated with Loading Estimates
Allied Chemical, Lehigh Valley, MacNaughton-Brooks, Madison Wire, West
Seneca. Most of the uncertainty associated with the loading analysis is due to lack of or
insufficient data on sorption and source characterization. Transient loading depends primarily
on the average linear velocity (V) and the retardation factor (R), and secondarily on the
dispersion coefficients (DL and 67). Velocities were estimated with site-specific data, whereas
no such data were available for retardation or sorption. Improvements in the transient loadings
would therefore require better characterization of retardation factors or sorption isotherms. The
steady-state loading, the maximum loading rate achievable, is directly proportional to the
average linear velocity (V), the aquifer thickness (b), the source width (2a), and the source
concentration (C0). Of these parameters, the source width and source concentration are known
with the least certainty. Hence, any improvement in the estimates of the steady-state loadings
would require environmental measurements to better characterize pollutant sources.
Buffalo Color. The hydrogeology of the Buffalo Color site is relatively well-
characterized, i.e., the groundwater velocities and directions are known with a reasonable
amount of confidence. The chemical characterization of the site is less well-established. The
greatest uncertainty is associated with the adsorption of the PAHs, which was conservatively
neglected in this analysis, followed by adsorption of the metals. Improving the reliability of the
transient loading estimates would require environmental sampling of aquifer materials and
establishment of sorption isotherms or retardation factors in a laboratory setting.
58
-------
6.3 Pollutant Loadings via Other Pathways
The Remedial Investigation Report for the Buffalo Color site suggests that mechanical
erosion of fill comprising the river banks may be an important pathway for river contamination
in addition to the groundwater pathway. An erosion potential of about 579 yd^/yr (443 m^/yr) is
reported. If this bank material has significant levels of organics and metals, bank erosion may
be a direct contributor to the contaminated sediments in the vicinity of the Buffalo Color site.
Presently, insufficient soils data exists to estimate pollutant loadings from this source.
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An analysis was conducted to identify inactive hazardous wastes sites which may be
contributing one or more targeted pollutants (PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, metals) to the Buffalo
River AOC via groundwater flows and estimate the associated pollutant loadings. Based on a
screening of hydrogeological and groundwater quality data given in published Phase I, Phase II
and Remedial Investigation Reports for the NYSDEC, six sites were identified for which the
existing data indicates pollutant migration to the Buffalo River. The contributing sites include
Allied Chemical, Buffalo Color, Lehigh Valley Railroad, MacNaughton-Brooks, Madison Wire,
and West Seneca Transfer Station. Other sites were identified (Tifft Farm Nature Preserve and
Houghton Park) which might potentially be contributing one or more of the targeted pollutants
to the Buffalo River, but data were not sufficient to allow estimation of loadings from these
sites.
The principal targeted pollutants present at the identified sites include copper, iron, lead,
and PAHs. PCBs were detected at low levels in the soils at three sites (Lehigh Valley Railroad,
Tifft Farm Nature Preserve, West Seneca Transfer Station), but were not present in the
groundwater. The pesticide chlordane was detected at low concentration in one soil sample of
the MacNaughton-Brooks site, but not in the groundwater. Based on the available data, PCB
and pesticide pollution of the Buffalo River via the groundwater pathway does not appear to be
significant and no loading estimates were evaluated for these chemicals. It was also noted that
some of the identified sites are likely contributing significant quantities of non-targeted volatile
and semi-volatile organic and metal pollutants to the Buffalo River in addition to those targeted
by the USEPA.
Pollutant loadings to the Buffalo River were estimated using mathematical models for
contaminant transport by groundwater. An analytical model was applied at the Allied Chemical,
Lehigh Valley Railroad, MacNaughton-Brooks, Madison Wire and West Seneca Transfer Station
sites, while a numerical model was applied at the Buffalo Color site. These models were
parameterized using data published in reports to the NYSDEC and literature values. The
resulting loadings recommended for the Buffalo River Mass Balance Project are summarized in
Tables 6.1 and 6.2, and Figures '5.5,5.6 and 5.7. The locations of these loadings with respect to
the river reach are as shown in Figure 7.1.
Because this study was conducted using only existing data, due to resource limitations,
there is considerable uncertainty associated with the loading estimates at sites where intensive
Remedial Investigations have not be conducted (Remedial Investigation Reports have been
published only for the Buffalo Color and Madison Wire sites). Increasing the reliability of these
estimates would require site-specific field investigations to better characterize the hydrogeology,
pollutant source areas and strengths, and sorption isotherms/retardation factors. It is also
59
-------
recognized that mass balance models constructed for the Buffalo River may or may not be
sensitive to the groundwater pollutant loadings presented in this report, e.g., loadings from
upstream tributary sources or combined sewer outfall sources might be more significant.
Therefore, it is recommended that the sensitivity analyses be conducted using the mass balance
model to identify the inactive hazardous waste sites, if any, which are critical to the mass
balance modeling effort. Once these sites are identified, resources can be better allocated to
decrease uncertainty with respect to groundwater pollutant loads.
It is also recommended that groundwater pollutant loadings be updated with evolving
NYSDEC investigations, including an assessment of newly listed sites and publication of
Remedial Investigation Reports. Newly listed sites, e.g., Niagara Transformer and Bern Metal
(NYSDEC, 1991), might be pollutant sources for the Buffalo River. Sites at which only Phase H
Investigations are complete and insufficient data exists to assess pollutant migration potential
(e.g., Tifft Farm Nature Preserve) should be re-examined if Remedial Investigation Reports or
any other additional data are published.
60
-------
West Seneca Transfer Station
MacNaughton-Brooks
Allied Chemical
Buffalo River
Lake Erie
Madison Wire
Cazenovia Creek
Lehigh Valley Railroad
N
Fig. 7.1. Locations of groundwater pollutant sources along the Buffalo River.
61
-------
8. REFERENCES
Buehler, E. J., and I. H. Tesmer, Geology of Erie County, New York, Buffalo Society of Natural
Sciences Bulletin, Buffalo, New York, 1963.
Coates, J. T., and A. W. Elzerman, Desorption kinetics for selected PCB congeners from river
sediments, J. Contam. HydroL, 1,191-210,1986
de Marsily, G., Quantitative Hydrogeology, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California, 1986.
Goode, D. J., and L. F. Konikow, Modification of a Method-of-Characteristics Solute-Transport
Model to Incorporate Decay and Equilibrium-Controlled Sorption of Ion Exchange, U. S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4030,1989.
Javandel, L, C. Doughty, and C-F Tsang, Groundwater Transport: Handbook of Mathematical
Models, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1984.
Karickhoff, S. W., Organic pollutant sorption in aquatic systems, J. Hydraul Eng., ASCE, 110,
707-735, 1984.
Konikow, L. F., and J. D. Bredehoeft, Computer Model of Two-Dimensional Solute Transport
and Dispersion in Ground Water, Techniques of Water-Resoures Investigation, U. S.
Geological Survey, Ch. C2, Book 7,1978.
Koszalka, E. J., Paschal, J. E., T. S. Miller, and P. B. Duran, Preliminary Evaluation of
Chemical Migration to Groundwater and the Niagara River from Selected Waste-
Disposal Sites, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-905/4-85-001, March,
1985.
LaBauve, J. M., J. Kotuby-Amacher, and R. P. Gambrell, The effect of soil properties and a
synthetic municipal landfill leachate on the retention of Cd, Ni, Pb, and Zn in soil and
sediment materials, J. Water Pollut. Fed., 60,379-385,1988.
La Sala, A. M., Jr., Ground-Water Resources of the Erie-Niagara Basin, New York, State of
New York Conservation Department, Water Resources Commission, Basin Planning
Report ENB-3,1968.
Lyman, W. J., W. F. Reehl, and D. H. Rosenblatt, Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1990.
Mimides, T., and J. W. Lloyd, Toxix metal adsorption in the triassic sandstone aquifer of the
English Midlands, Environ. Geol Water Sci., 10(3), 135-140,1987.
Morris, D. A., and A. I. Johnson, Summary of Hydrologic and Physical Properties of Rock and
Soil Materials as Analyzed by the Hydrologic Laboratory of the U. S. Geological Survey
- 1948-1960, U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1839-D, 1967.
Muller, E. H., Quarternary Geology of New York, Niagara Sheet, New York State Museum and
Science Service Map and Chart Series No. 28, The University of the State of New York,
State Education Department, 1977.
NYSDEC, Buffalo River Remedial Action Plan, November, 1989.
NYSDEC, Buffalo River Remedial Aciton Plan, Annual Report, June, 1991.
Shacklette, H. T., and J. G. Boerngen, Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial
Materials of the Conterminous United States, U. S. Geological Survey, Professional
Paper 1270,1984.
Staubitz, W. W., and T. S. Miller, Geology and Hydrology of the Onondaga Aquifer in Eastern
Erie County, New York, with Emphasis on Groundwater-Level Declines Since 1982, U.
S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4317, Ithaca, New
York, 1-44, 1987.
Wu, S-C, and P. M. Gschwend, Sorption kinetics of hydrophobic organic chemicals to natural
sediments and soils, Environ. Sci. Technol, 20, 717-725,1986.
62
------- |