Agency Review Draft
REMEDIAL
Volumes 1 i»f 2
G&JBI? LAMppLL • SITE
Shelby Township, Michigan
WA 12-517(K(VCohti^ctN6^
March 16, 1990
This document has been prepared fpt|iKS U.S. Environiriehtal Protection Agency
under Goiitract No. 68-W8-0040. TBe^ maiexial containeid herein is considered
.confidential and is not to^be disclosedV|D, discussed;:with, lot made available to
any person or persons for any reason :y«ite>i.it the prior' excess approval of a
responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
GLT959/(M9.50-1
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 1
Site Description and History 1
Introduction 1-1
Project Execution 1-1
Goals 1-2
Report Organization 1-2
Site Background 2-1
Site Description 2-1
Existing Environment 2-3
Site History 2-4
Previous Site Investigations and Reports 2-8
EPA Removal Actions 2-12
Investigation Results 3-1
Physical Characteristics 3-1
Contaminant Source Areas 3-13
Summary 3-55
Fate and Transport 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Nature and Extent of Contamination 4-1
Migration Potential of Representative Chemicals 4-2
Potential Migration Pathways 4-4
Contaminant Migration at Site .4-8
Summary 4^15
Summary of the Baseline Risk Assessment 5-1
Introduction , 5-1
Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern 5-2
Toxicity Assessment 5-3
Exposure Assessment 5-5
Public Health Risk Characterization 5-12
Major Uncertainties and Assumptions $-16^
Summary ^-17^
References 6-1
Appendix A. Technical Memorandums
Appendix B. Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C. Public Health Risk Assessment Methodology
Appendix D. Risk Calculations
Appendix E. Environmental Evaluation
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
'
Follows
.....;• Page
Site Location . , ,:'.;-. 2-1
Waste-Disposal Areas,., C.. - ,'-f, V<;, 2-1
i^;/.2-3 FIT and Stage,! RI^i$ldj:W(&Kdbppations ; 2-9
;&£;£ "2-4! Stage. II> RI Field Work locations;' 2-10
:.- 3-1 Surface Geology of Macpmb^^^akland Counties " ;3-4
!W 3-2 Generalized'StrMgra^Kjc^Mfflh^ 3-5
.,-,- 3-3 Cross Section Loca^idns1" ' "V^'i 3-6
£§4 :3-4 , Cross Section.A-A^1'L'; 'c'(,-'-':... , , . ;,3^6
^t^f'-3-6. Cross^SectiQn4.C^.'ACJ,^ •,;..- >/'.'.f,..^., . 3-6
rflp^ 3-8 PotentiometriC1 Surface bt tapper Aquifer 3-8
•fc-c 3-9 Water Budget for thei Upper ^.tiuifer 3-10
. •", .- • -o.~ ' ' i • , t rr •. * ( T (7T'^r' ; -»
. 3-10 Potentiometric Surfaceiof. Lower; Aquifer 3-12
f/5; .- ?3-ll Source Area,JBordag ^nd ^test;Pit!.Locations 3-16
;. - 3-12 Bottom of Landfill: ReJEj^:.^^^;;' ' 3--1B
.'j^if. .3-1^3 Identified JOU..Cp0t^^iwl'?dJ SbjjJ. aild"Refuse .. 3-23
;..., 3-r4 BETX ConcentratiQns^^v^ouri^r^reas 3-23
f^s;-P3£15 ; P|*JA.in Source,Ar^a^"u;V''^;.,^^ff^r ' 3-23
t'.^' 3-17 Spurce Area.:Crpss^^Jeefipn|^A^* Showing Total
~,rr C|- BETX Concentraiion 1H^: jv^> ;*" 3"23
Vf^ 3-JL8 Contaminants in Stage II and ;m; Surface Soil Samples 3-32
3-19 Designated Site Areas ! . - 3-32
i" 3-20 Maximum Extent .of BETX Cpricentrations in Groundwater 3-35
- - 3-21 Maximum Extent of Chlorinated VOC Concentrations in
..;. ' Groundwater -.••'«,;,*'•'••..-,• - ^_ 3-35
3-22 Maximum Extent ptPN^ Cpricentrations in Groundwater , 3-37
£23. Residential Well SahipJing LoG^iSns; 3-39
3-M; BIE^ Concentrations.^ SurfacevWater and Sediment 3-46
!j 3-25j BJETX Concentration^'in Su^fakic.^ ^ater and Sediment -
.*--?. v.:'.'"•-= from Interim RI '; '"'•' *.•"*?'&••*";;!.; ' ' . 3-46
|=| 3-26 PNA and PCB Concentrations in Sediments 3-49
4-1 Selected Groundwater ContaminarftMigration Paths "" 4-12
: 5-1 , LaridUseMap '."." f - . ^ . 5-7
? 5-2 Residential Well Sa.nipling Lociatipns'' ' ; 5-10
4 GLT959/025.51
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
TABLES .".-. .^Follows
- /•*<:,.! c"-':'-;':vi-'iPage:..
2-1 Summary of Stage I and II RI Activities .,..:..„. *: / J-i- 2-10
\i •'- 3-1 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring WeUs-^^; f; — ^ ;;\!!;; ^$v 3
•v';-.. 3-2 Source Testing Summary Stage'lri In^sti^aHo^^^^^Cv^ ^,^:' ^f^-3"
!i -3-3 Contaminant Groups ~,''.,..'.J f5*!?'^ ,! "E^v^, '.' •'•'-• '^ ' c:' 3-
_,,-, 3-4 Comparison of Inorganic Analyte Results With-' ^ >-S;-I>j ^t-r.- itrv
3-6
. .
Background Maximum Probable Concehtrdiiops 'jiouhy''!"' ^ ; .: ;.-:<• 3-25
3-5 Summary of Organic Groundwater Contaminant A •:'-, ":/ , ; : Ui ~ ;!-
Concentrations Round I : .'"!^ ';i: '''
. . r .
Summary of Organic Groundwater Contamiha:rf't !v; *.:' - ' >k"?.; i'':f~~" ' L^-
Concentrations Round II -'5r",Mf ;!" '*' t ! ' >:^ 3'34
3-1 Inorganic Analytical Results Summary for Groun.d>yater' ! ''^ U-^.. f-y^ 3-39
•..|;'v 3-8 Inorganic Background Concentrations in Surface".^ater^-'v, y ;M 3-48
;• r 3.9 Inorganic Background Concentration in Sedimem0' - '• '; , ' '; \f! . 5-50
^'•': 3-10 Samples Exceeding Inorganic Background CobcehtTatiohs' " f •>
^"^ Contaminant Concentration from Teft^T^e^;^ ' ' >i! x7; £c 3-53
^-'^ 3-13 Ambient Air VOC Sampling Event4 • *.• v_- -. - . r -• ' ' :*" '-
V"";. 4-1 Representative Compounds "„;• ^'. -, , - T^' . -.' ; ' -
-""' 4-2 Physical Chemical Properties,d^S^lected^^ !;>;-/; ';
>- Representative Compounds i - ' ;i ' u ^-' - _•-
4-3 Estimated Contaminant Velocities^ Along Selected1 Paths °H:i. ;Y
A^'•' 4-4 Estimated Vertical Migration R^te^fpr Representative;'L'r.:' v^ ;,:-;->
'^"'' Compounds ^l^^'^'f''^^;;;: !:;'..-r:it?V'--':^- r-?^"- ^" —
5-1 Potential Contaminants of Coricerfi;'ahtf Sel^t^d Criteria ;' r~"F. i^r 5-2
5-2 Carcinogenic Potencies . :"~' '•./' :'J ,'- t !;..v,/; '"•.-.-/, 5-4
5-3 Reference Doses ' ',;' n" '.f ? :-^-™r •. - "-•-'• •"•"•• ;V "• -'••• "• ' . 5-5
5-4 Analysis of Exposure Pathways. ;.'j•-,,;;.;',"__ r, . ' -'•/ .• 2 j-f- 5^5
5-5 Exposure Pathways Addressed'. , ^: ,!',...-' "' " '!''. ' ,5-5
5-6 Exposure Assumptions '"'"'' .,:'-"' ':.j-|r? 5-7
5-7 Summary of Site Visitor Risks..-.-' ; , -....-•..,. ^^ .', , ;ci .'.'W'5'43
5-8 Summary of Groundwater Use,RisksrIn'ciustriaT" '":!' :'•••"•'c-'' ;-•'-••.
and Residential Wells " : • :> -'••'.'. 5-14
5-9 Summary of Groundwater Use Risks _ , ,/,, '74^1 5-14
5-10 Summary of Residential and Industrial Well
Concentrations Which Exceed Criteria '•'". "'• 5-15
5-11 Summary of Monitoring Well Concentrations that
Exceed U.S. EPA Standards, Criteria, and Guidelines 545
5-12 Summary of Risks ' 547
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Remedial Investigation report presents and interprets the data from the
environmental samples collected at the G&H Landfill site, documents the nature
and extent of the hazardous chemicals found, and presents an assessment of
possible adverse health effects relating to site contamination. Specific objectives
of the remedial investigation were to:
• Summarize field investigation activities
• Present analytical results of the environmental samples
• Determine the nature and extent of hazardous chemicals
• Assess how contaminants might migrate offsite
• Evaluate risks posed to public health and the environment from
contaminant releases under current and future conditions
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The G&H Landfill site is located in Shelby Township, Macomb County,
Michigan. There are two light industrial facilities to the east: a portable
sanitation manufacturer and a petroleum products distributor. An inactive
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
:s
automobile disposal yard is located directly north of the industrial area and is
considered part of the site. Beyond the industrial facilities is a residential area
. v ';
' east of Ryan Road. A new housing .development exists north of 23 Mile Road.
•/fhe:Rochester-Utica State Recreational Area lies south of the site along the
Clinton River (see Figure 1).
The site contains three distinct landfill areas:
•; *• * 1
• Phase I Landfill—36 acres'
• Phase II Landfill—15 acres
Phase III Landfill—8 acres
. •'•, i •
Waste disposal operations at the site began in the mid-1950s and ended in 1973.
The site accepted municipal refuse and liquid and solid industrial wastes
including oils, solvents, paint residues, and industrial process muds. Separate
areas in the Phase I Landfill were identified as receiving solid and liquid wastes,
in bulk and in drums. These areas, which are now covered with fill, include:
"" ..-. '/':• '
Oil Pond No. 1
Oil Pond No. 2
• Rubbish Area (referred.to as the Codisposal Area)
• Paint, Varnish, and Solvent Ponds
From approximately 1955 to 1967, the G&H Industrial Fill Company operated a
\''.,- -. . - .
waste oil recovery system at the site. Bulk waste oil from various industrial
sources was transported to the site in railroad tanker cars or tanker trucks.
Records indicate that an estimated 600,000 gallons of waste oil was accepted
monthly at the site, although the time period over which this volume was
accepted is not known.
-------
W
Q
LiJ
I
IT
a
s
o
.
[.-300
LEGEND
" • ' , *•"
LANDFILL BOUNDARY
;..-•• x --x x JU.S. EPA SITE FENCE
; rGATE
DITCH. STREAM, OR
RIVER
AUTOMOBILE '
DISPOSAL x
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
PHASE I LANDFILL
PHASE III
LANDFILL
3-A [Jlli,.,, ;'>•'-:?'=
CO-DISPOSAL
AREA
(SOLVENTS)
LEACHATE
SEEP
- ^
2S:!.^ fg-- lE'Ti...
PHASE II LANDFILL
iVi£w " l£££AM*t 11 rmvfsvt 11
COMMERCIAL
OIL
SEEPAGE AREA
.RAILROAD GRADE
•i ^.,-REMOVED)
I;':'.. -,,,ma.,,*mlftxaas • ROCHESTER - UT1CA
~^ •"-•-'••• -' STATE RECREATION AREA
''••••••••••.. • : :•: :.":1 '.'•'.. '•':'•
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Beginning in the early 1960s, local residents complained to the Macomb County
Health Board (MCHB) about sewage odors emanating from the Clinton-
Kalamazoo Canal south of the site. Landfill operations ceased in 1973; however,
a final closure plan for the site was never prepared. In 1982, the EPA's Field
Investigation Team (FIT) initiated a site investigation in cooperation with the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Based on that
investigation, the site was placed on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites in September 1983. Sites on the list are eligible for
remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. The authority to list, investigate, and
remedy hazardous waste sites under the act has been extended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
HISTORY OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS
The G&H Landfill site was initially investigated by MWRC in 1965 in response
to complaints by local residents. The investigation completed in 1966 concluded:
• Groundwater flow was generally to the south
• Seepage from the oil ponds was contaminating groundwater, which
then migrated beyond the boundaries of the landfill property
• Groundwater and surface water contamination was still occurring
from paints, lacquers, and thinners even though these materials
were no longer being accepted at the site
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
In 1982, FIT personnel under the direction of the U.S. EPA conducted a
hydrogeological investigation at the site. The investigation determined that
organic and inorganic contaminants were present in groundwater, surface water,
and subsurface soil at the site. The calculated Hazard Ranking Score led to
placing the site on the National Priorities List in September 1983.
A Remedial Action Master Plan was completed in 1983. The plan identified the
scope of practical remedial investigation activities, recommended initial remedial
measures for the site, and developed a site chronology.
Stage I remedial investigation activities, conducted from 1983 to 1985, were
directed primarily toward determining offsite releases. Stage II RI activities,
conducted from 1985 to 1987, were directed toward better defining
contamination sources and releases attributable to those sources. The EPA in
consultation with the MDNR concluded that additional data were required to
complete a risk assessment and feasibility study for the site.
A Supplemental Investigation (concurrent with Stage III RI activities) was
conducted by MDNR. The data generated by this work were intended by the
MDNR to supplement the Stage III activities.
EPA REMOVAL ACTIONS
From 1982 to the present, four emergency removal actions have been conducted
at the G&H Landfill site by EPA through the Emergency and Enforcement
Response Branch.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Action No. 1 completed in 1982 resulted in a chain-link and snow fence being
constructed around the Oil Seep Area, and three overflow dams being installed
to direct the flow of surface water around the Oil Seep Area.
In 1982-1983, oil seeps extended beyond the fenced area. Action No. 2 included
installing an oil skimmer to prevent floating oil from migrating, constructing clay
barriers in the path of new oil seeps, and extending the fence around the
perimeter of the new oil seeps.
In 1986, another remedial action was necessary because the clay barriers and site
fence constructed in 1983 were preventing neither the migration of oil nor public
access to the oil. Action No. 3 consisted of blocking onsite trails, installing a
gate across the main entrance, isolating oil seepage areas by excavating a
collector trench and installing a sheetpile barrier, constructing a pole barn to
store PCB-contaminated wastes recovered during this action and anticipated
further actions, and recovering oil from the collector trench and storing it inside
the storage building.
In 1987, Action No. 4 resulted in the construction of a 3-mile-long chain-link
fence around the site perimeter, installing a temporary treatment system at the
discharge point of the oil seepage area, and collecting and transporting
approximately 2,400 gallons of oil to a thermal destruction facility in Chicago.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
MAJOR FINDINGS
HYDROGEOLOGIC FEATURES
Four stratigraphic units within the surficial deposits have been identified. The
upper sand unit is 7 to 46 feet thick, but may be absent in some areas. The
upper sand unit contains the upper unconfined aquifer. The lower lacustrine
unit, till unit, and lower sand unit makeup the lower confined aquifer.
Groundwater flow of the upper unconfined aquifer is primarily south-
southwesterly, except in the western portion of the site where flow is more
westerly toward the Clinton River.
SOIL CONTAMINATION
The areas of the highest chemical contamination in the soil are in the Phase I
landfill, primarily near the oil ponds and the suspected Codisposal Area. Soils
in or near the Phase II and III landfills also show contamination but to a lesser
extent. Soils in the industrial area to the east show that contamination extends
offsite.
Many organic contaminants were detected in the soil. BETX compounds
showed the greatest areal extent of contamination. Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons and PCBs were the other organic compounds most often detected
and at the highest concentrations. Many inorganic analytes were detected above
background in or near the three landfill areas.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
The vertical extent of groundwater contamination for BETX, PNA, and
chlorinated VOCs appears to be limited to the base of the refuse and top of the
upper sand unit. The horizontal extent of BETX contamination is downgradient
of Oil Pond No. 1 and the suspected Codisposal Area. The highest
concentrations of chlorinated VOC contamination are adjacent to the old solvent
pond. Plumes of chlorinated VOCs can be seen migrating around the sheet pile
wall in the Oil Seep Area and adjacent to the Oil Storage Building. PNA
contamination in the groundwater appears to follow the same trends as BETX
contamination but to a lesser extent and at lower levels.
RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING
Organic contamination detected at the residential and industrial wells sampled in
the vicinity of the site cannot be attributed to the site. However, the waste
types detected in these wells appear to be consistent with waste types
encountered at the site.
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Contaminants from the migration of separate phase liquids and contaminated
groundwater from the original Phase I Landfill area are the source of
contamination of sediment and surface water in the Oil Seep Area and surface
runoff for contamination south and southwest of the Oil Seep Area. BETX and
PNA compounds were detected in surface water upgradient of the Oil Seep
Area. Sediment in and downgradient of the Oil Seep Area was contaminated
primarily with PNA compounds.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
RISK ASSESSMENT
A risk assessment was performed to evaluate the potential for adverse effects to
public health or the environment under the no-action alternative (i.e., if no
remedial action is taken). The risk assessment identified ways that people or
wildlife could contact contaminants from the site. It evaluated potential
exposures from existing site uses and possible future uses of the site.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Under existing site conditions, chemical exposure can occur by direct contact by
site visitors with contaminated media, by release of volatile compounds from the
Phase I Landfill, and inhalation by site visitors. Potential exposure pathways
offsite include release of contaminants to the groundwater, transport off site and
exposure through the use of groundwater as a water supply source, release of
volatile compounds from the Phase I Landfill and inhalation by offsite
residences, exposure to people engaged in recreational activities in areas
adjacent to the site through direct contact with contaminated surface water and
sediments, and exposure of people that consume wildlife contaminated by the
site. Chemical exposure to the environment includes exposure of terrestrial
wildlife through direct contact with contaminated media at the site, and exposure
of aquatic organisms in the Clinton River or Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal to
contaminants released from the site to those water bodies by way of
groundwater discharge or site runoff.
Carcinogenic health effects are measured by the calculated excess lifetime cancer
risk. The excess lifetime cancer risk is the added probability of developing
8
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
cancer resulting from the site over the normal probability of developing cancer.
For example, a one one-millionth (1 x 10"6) excess lifetime cancer risk means
that for every one million people exposed to a carcinogen over their lifetimes,
the average incidence of cancer will increase by one case.
Noncarcinogenic effects exhibit a level of exposure below which no adverse
effects are expected. The exposure to contaminants having noncarcinogenic
health effects was evaluated by comparing an estimated intake of contaminant to
an intake level representing the threshold or reference dose. The ratio of intake
to reference dose is called a hazard index. If the hazard index exceeds one, it is
an indication of the potential for adverse effects.
The risks from exposure are summarized in Table 1. The exposures of greatest
potential concern based on the quantitative risk characterization include:
• Direct contact with surface soil on the Phase I Landfill
• Direct contact with sediments in the Oil Seep Area
• An accidental direct dermal exposure to the oil seep water (i.e.,
falling in)
• A residential use of groundwater as a drinking water source
Qualitative evaluations were performed for potential exposures to recreational
users of the Clinton River and the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. These are
potential pathways that could not be quantitatively evaluated.
-------
Tablet
SUMMARY OF RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Page 1 of 3
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Risk Characterization
Primary Chemicals of Interest
Comments
HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
Site visitors come in
direct contact with
surface soils, onsite
sediments, or exposed
waste (i.e. oil seep)
Onsite
Cancer Risk-Surface Soil
4 X 10-6
Cancer Risk-Sediment in
Oil Seep Area 4 X 10-6
Cancer Risk-Other Onsite
Sediments-ranged from 1 x 10-7
to 4 X 10-8
PCBs, PNAs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
PCB
Surface soil contamination
sparsely distributed in the
Phase I Landfill.
Sediments in oil seep ponds.
Risk doesn't include inorganic
data.
Site visitors inhale
volatile chemicals
released from buried
waste
Onsite
Noncarcinogenic Risks-
Hazard Index < 1
Cancer Risk - Ambient Air
7 X 10-8
No individual chemical intakes
exceeded its RfD.
Risks based on available data;
Inorganic data not received.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Exposures likely
to be lower.
Noncarcinogenic Risks -
Hazard Index < 1
No individual chemical intakes
exceeded its RfD.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Exposures likely
to be lower.
Site visitors come in
accidental direct contact
with contaminated oil seep
surface water.
Onsite
Ingestion Cancer Risk -
9 X 10-5
Dermal Absorption Cancer Risk -
5 X 10-6
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
PCB
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
PCB
Inorganic chemical data not
received.
Noncarcinogenic Risks -
Hazard Index > 1 for both
ingestion and dermal
absorption.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
Butylbenzylphthalate
Inorganic chemical data not
received.
-------
Tablet
SUMMARY OF RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Page 2 of 3
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Risk Characterization
Primary Chemicals of Interest
Comments
Release of contaminants
to groundwater used as
drinking water supply
Existing residential,
industrial wells
Cancer risks individual
private wells 1 X 104 to
2 X 10-7.
Noncarcinogenic Risks -
Hazard Index < 1
l,l-dichloroethane,l benzene,
1,1-dichloroethene, vinyl
chloride, trichloroethene
No individual chemicals intake
exceeded its RfD
Risks based on concentrations
detected in industrial wells,
not currently used for
drinking water.
Volatilization and
release of volatile
chemicals from subsurface
with subsequent release
to nearby residents and
businesses
Offsite (residents
businesses)
Cancer risks monitoring wells
range from 2 X 10-2 to
5 X 10-4.
Noncarcinogenic risk Hazard
Index > 1 for Areas 1 and 3
monitoring wells
Cancer Risk - Ambient Air
1 X 10-6
Arsenic, benzene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
1,1-dichloroethane, vinyl
chloride, trichloroethene,
bis(2-chloroehtyl)ether,
N-nitrosodiphenylaraine
No individual chemical's
intake exceeded its RfD.
Trichloroethane, carbontetra-
chloride, benzene
Risks include arsenic
concentrations. Current
groundwater use is limited,
but no groundwater use
restrictions in place.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Assumed cap does not
limit releases, constant
release, and contains exposure.
Exposures likely to be lower.
No individaul chemical risk
equal to or greater than
1 x 10-6.
Noncarcinogenic risks
Hazard Index < 1
No individual chemical intakes
exceeded its RfD.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Exposures likely
to be lower.
-------
Tablet
SUMMARY OF RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Page 3 of 3
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Risk Characterization
Primary Chemicals of Interest
Comments
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Terrestrial wildlife come
in direct contact with
contaminated surface soil,
sediments, or exposed
waste (i.e., oil seep)
Aquatic organisms come in
contact (bioconcentration,
bioaccumulation) with
chemicals released from
site.
Onsite and Utica-
Rochester
Recreation Area
Clinton River,
Clinton-Kalamazoo
Canal, adjacent
wetlands and ponds
PCB, PNAs, Pesticides
Inorganics and organics
The compounds found in the
terrestrial wildlife have
also been reported in the
site environmental matrices.
A causal link between
compounds found in the
animals and the site cannot
however be proven.
The compounds found in the
aquatic biota have also been
reported in the site
environmental matrices. A
causal link between compounds
found in the animals and the
site cannot however be proven.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Based on the data presented in this report, the U.S. EPA may conclude that
unacceptable environmental and human health risks exist because of site
contamination. Remedial action may be needed to reduce the potential for
exposure. A feasibility study may be required to recommend alternatives for
accomplishing site remediation.
GLT959/021.50
10
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the findings of the remedial investigation (RI) conducted
from 1983 to 1989 at the G&H Landfill site in Macomb County, Michigan.
CH2M HELL performed the work authorized by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-W8-0040, Work Assignment
No. 12-5L70.0.
PROJECT EXECUTION
The RI field investigations were performed in three phases to allow for
adjustment of subsequent tasks on the basis of previous findings. Project stages
and corresponding time periods are:
Stage I, 1983-1985
Stage II, 1985-1987
Stage III, 1987-1989
Stage I activities were directed toward identifying releases from the G&H
Landfill site into the surrounding environment. Stage II activities were
conducted to locate and characterize source areas based on Stage I findings.
Stage III activities were performed to provide information where data gaps were
identified following Stages I and II.
Data collected during Stages I and II were presented and evaluated in the
Interim RI Report (EPA 1987). Those data are not presented in this report;
1-1
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
however, the data were used and evaluated for consistency with the findings
presented herein.
GOALS
The goal of the Stage III investigation was to provide additional information
where data gaps were identified following Stages I and II and evaluate the data
to support a feasibility study (FS). Specific project goals were to:
• Better define the nature and extent of site contamination and
existing and potential routes of contaminant migration and release
• Quantify potential public health and environmental risks associated
with potential exposures to contaminants from the G&H Landfill
site
• Evaluate remedial alternatives
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This RI report concentrates on the findings of the Stage III investigation and
presents them simply and briefly. Results of Stages I and II were reviewed and
used during the evaluation of Stage III data, with primary attention to trends or
inconsistencies between the various phases.
The chapters of this report systematically address the following issues:
1-2
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• Chapter 2, Site Background—What are the site's features and local
setting? What is the history of the site and how has it raised the
public concern? What other investigations have been conducted at
the site?
• Chapter 3, Investigation Results—What are the physical site
characteristics? What contamination by hazardous substances have
been found onsite? Where are the hazardous substances and how
extensive are releases?
• Chapter 4, Contaminant Migration and Fate—What is the potential
for contaminants of concern to be released to the environment and
how may they be released?
• Chapter 5, Risk Assessment Summary—What is the potential for
public or environmental exposure to contaminants? What are the
risks associated with potential exposure to contaminants?
Details regarding specific field activities and corresponding data objectives are
documented in the technical memorandums contained in Appendix A.
GLT863/080.50
1-3
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Chapter 2
SITE BACKGROUND
Chapter 2 presents a general site description and the history of the G&H
Landfill site. Previous site investigations and emergency actions already
implemented at the site are also discussed.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The G&H Landfill site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 19, Shelby
Township, Macomb County, Michigan (Figure 2-1). It is approximately 3 miles
northwest of Utica. The site operated as a waste oil reclamation facility from
1955 to 1967 facility and landfill from approximately 1955 to 1973. The 100-acre
site is currently closed to disposal activities.
From the mid-1950s to the present, the local area has changed from a rural
setting into a more heavily populated residential area. Aerial photographs taken
in 1955 indicate that land use in the site vicinity was primarily farming or sand
and gravel mining. There is a residential area east of Ryan Road and a new
housing development north of 23 Mile Road. The Rochester-Utica State
Recreational Area, managed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), lies just south of the site along the Clinton River.
Approximately 60 acres of the site lie between an abandoned Conrail Railroad
right-of-way and 23 Mile Road (Figure 2-2). This area is bordered on the east
by two light industrial facilities: a portable sanitation manufacturer and a
petroleum products distributor. An inactive automobile salvage yard, located
directly north of the light industrial area, is considered to be part of the site.
The other 40 acres of the site are southwest of the railroad grade. This area is
2-1
-------
CM
n
8
8
d
AUTOMOBILE
DISPOSAL
YARD
*
I s~*—~r % »
-^__ . »
CCALI IN MIICS
Site Vicinity Map-
LEGEND
~ APPROXIMATE LIMfTS OF
LANDFILL AREAS
NOTE: Location of all structures and site
features are approximate.
0 600
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 2-1
SITE LOCATION
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
RESIDENTIAL AREA
0>
n
S""rtAiiift^,~ ...^.ojiiMiin""""*""111'
23 - MILS ROAD
PHASE III :
LANDFILL
PHASE II LANDFILL
»••*•""•* *"? *
\ OIL?POND " N
\ NOJ/I
\ I;
PHASE 1 LANDFILL
i \
/ x
/ \
' \
CO-DISPOSAL ' 4
AREA '
(SOLVENTS) >s^ /
/ r
/ I
i \ i
' \ /
*•** "' - - - / i< . '
'**£" **Xl "
• ;;a
• : '
\ S'... .-••,:.
• -:: : AUTOMOBILE
: : DISPOSAL
• ''• ••; YARD
::•••' 5 ; '/' \\
» > ,' ;>
m ' :
\
\ U 1 1 , }
• I
• ;
x *"x : \ :
• : : : :
m •
• i COMMERCIAL
•L AREA
\\ i;
i^ 1
•'|| 1
"H!
Hi
x •: :":
y
1 i;
1 1
i OC
i i ^
....: S <
— ;i S
1 1
=»\;
SSSSM « » S«S» 5 » 9
ROCHESTER - UTICA
STATE RECREATION AREA
FIGURE 2-2 -
WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
G & H LANDFILL Rl '
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
bounded on the south by wetlands and woodlands and on the west by the
Clinton River.
The Detroit Metropolitan Water and Sewer District has a north-south pipeline
easement in the western portion of the site (see Figure 2-2). The easement is
for a 96-inch-diameter waterline and a 24-inch near-surface interceptor sewer.
The waterline, constructed in 1967 by the trench and fill method, serves as the
main distribution line from Lake Huron to western suburban Detroit. The
interceptor, which serves Shelby Township, connects into a 96-inch-diameter
regional interceptor beneath the site. The regional interceptor serves Oakland
County and connects to the Sewer District's main treatment plant. It was
constructed in 1971 by tunneling and is approximately 40 feet below ground.
Various abandoned facilities cross the site (see Figure 2-2). An abandoned
railroad right-of-way, formerly part of the Conrail system, runs through the site
in a northwest to southeast direction. A spur line right-of-way runs northward
on the western edge of the site. The Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal, an abandoned
navigation project, runs east to west through the woodlands south of the site and
turns northward along the western edge of the site. The canal currently exists as
an intermittent, 20-foot-wide ditch filled with debris in the western and southern
portions of the site. The woodlands area contains many abandoned sand and
gravel mining trenches.
The site contains three distinct landfilled areas (Figure 2-2):
• Phase I Landfill—36 acres
• Phase II Landfill—15 acres
Phase III Landfill—8 acres
The landfill surfaces have undergone differential settling and are characterized
by uneven terrain with numerous depressions. The surface elevations are
roughly the same elevation as 23 Mile Road. The Phase I and II Landfills are
vegetated with grasses, weeds, scrub brush, and small trees; the Phase III
2-2
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Landfill has little vegetation. All three areas have some exposed refuse at the
surface. The Phase II Landfill has a steep southern slope that terminates in
woodlands to the south, and the Phase III Landfill has a steep slope to the west
and south that terminates in woodlands and swamp. An oil seepage area is
located south of the east portion of the Phase I Landfill, and there are leachate
seeps at the west boundary of the site along the Phase III Landfill (see
Figure 2-2).
An automobile salvage yard in the northeast portion of the site occupies
approximately 10 acres (see Figure 2-2). Although this area was not used for
landfilling, it is littered with the remains of automobiles, trucks, and construction
equipment.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Several distinct types of vegetation are present at the G&H Landfill and
adjacent areas. The Phase I and Phase II Landfills are characterized by a
mixture of herbaceous species typical of disturbed sites. Some small trees and
shrubs are present in the central portion of the Phase I Landfill. There is
limited vegetative cover on the Phase III Landfill; however, a wet, wooded
parcel is located between it and the Clinton River. A woodland with oak trees
is also located immediately south of the Phase II Landfill.
A wetland south of the Phase I Landfill contains narrow, manmade excavations.
The standing water present in these excavations has a layer of oil on the surface,
a result of oil seepage from the landfill area to the north. Vegetation in the
area includes cattails, various shrubs, and trees. The wetland area extends south
past the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal near Ryan Road. Ponded water is present in
the unused canal, and a marshy area with aquatic and emergent vegetation is
found nearby. The land slopes steeply south of this wetland area. An oak-
2-3
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
hickory woodland present on the slope grades into a wooded area with elm,
cottonwood, and box elder trees adjacent to the Clinton River.
Wildlife habitat types at the G&H Landfill and adjacent areas include old field
on the landfills and upland woodlands. Wetland habitat types include woodland,
shrub/scrub, and marsh.
A variety of wildlife is found at the G&H Landfill site and the habitat adjacent
to the Clinton River. Mammal species include deer, raccoon, muskrat, red fox,
opossum, woodchuck, and red squirrel. The variety of bird species present
reflects the variety of habitat types. Birds found in the area include hawks, owls,
great blue herons, wood ducks, mallards, Canada geese, orioles, cardinals,
meadowlarks, doves, and various other species commonly found in a rural or
suburban environment.
The Clinton River is located south of the G&H Landfill. The river provides
habitat for fish species including northern pike, walleye pike, white sucker,
common shiner, and carp. Crayfish and snapping turtles are also found in this
river as well as the ponds between the access road and the Clinton Kalamazoo
Canal southeast of the Phase I Landfill.
SITE HISTORY
Waste disposal operations at the site began in the mid-1950s and ended in 1973.
The site accepted municipal refuse and liquid and solid industrial wastes
including oils, solvents, paint residues, and industrial process muds. Separate
areas in the Phase I Landfill were identified as receiving solid and liquid wastes,
in bulk and drums (Michigan Water Resource Commission [MWRC] 1965 and
1967). These areas (Figure 2-2), which are now covered with fill, include:
Oil Pond No. 1
2-4
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Oil Pond No. 2
• Rubbish Area (now referred to as the Codisposal Area)
• Paint, Varnish, and Solvent Ponds
From approximately 1955 to 1967, the G&H Industrial Fill Company operated a
waste oil recovery system at the site. Bulk waste oil from various industrial
sources was transported to the site in railroad tanker cars or tanker trucks.
Records indicate that an estimated 600,000 gallons of waste oil was accepted
monthly at the site (MWRC 1967); however, the time frame over which this
volume was accepted is not known.
Waste oil delivered to the site by rail was described as a heavy black slurry with
the appearance and odor of petroleum (MWRC 1967). The oil was discharged
through concrete flumes into Oil Pond No. 2 where heavier constituents were
allowed to settle. The upper layer of oil was then pumped to Oil Pond No. 1.
Waste oil delivered to the site by truck was described as a light gray water and
oil mixture having a milk-like viscosity and petroleum odor (MWRC 1967). The
oil was discharged to Oil Pond No. 1, where it mixed with the oil recovered
from Oil Pond No. 2. After the heavier constituents settled, the upper layer of
oil was collected and sold as industrial oil. Industrial personnel familiar with the
waste oil recovery operations estimated that approximately 50 percent of the
waste oil delivered to the site was recovered in this manner.
Beginning in the early 1960s, local residents complained to the Macomb County
Health Board (MCHB) about sewage odors emanating from the Clinton-
Kalamazoo Canal south of the site. An initial site inspection by MCHB did not
locate the source of the odors; however, the MCHB apparently notified MWRC
regarding this incident. Following repeated complaints, a joint site surveillance
by MCHB and MWRC discovered that groundwater seeps south of the railroad
tracks emitted a strong chemical odor.
2-5
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
In July 1965, MWRC conducted a groundwater and surface water investigation
at the site (MWRC 1965). At that time the site was accepting solid and liquid
waste, with most of liquid wastes being wastewater containing oils, oil sludges,
and soluble oils. Drums were also accepted at the site, and three distinct ponds
for the disposal of paints, varnishes, and chemical solvents were noted at that
time (see Figure 2-2). The investigation confirmed that groundwater flowed
southerly at the site and concluded that liquid disposal operations at the site
were responsible for contamination of groundwater seeps south of the railroad
tracks.
As a result of the 1965 investigation, a Consent Order was issued by the
Macomb County Circuit Court in May 1966 prohibiting the disposal of paints,
varnishes, paint thinners, and lacquer. However, the disposal of waste oil and
process sludges was not prohibited at that time.
In November 1966, MWRC initiated another site investigation to substantiate
that disposal of waste oils was also a source of groundwater contamination
(MWRC 1967). During that investigation, the groundwater seep south of the
railroad tracks was observed to flow into an impoundment, possibly a trench left
from sand and gravel mining. Overflow from the impoundment discharged from
an outlet in its western end and flowed southward to the Clinton-Kalamazoo
Canal. The water reportedly had a strong medicinal odor, and heavy deposits of
iron and oil-like substances were observed on bank vegetation. The investigation
concluded that oil reclamation activities at the site were contributing to
groundwater contamination.
Based on the 1966 investigation findings, the Macomb County Circuit Court
issued a Consent Order banning the disposal of any liquid industrial wastes,
muds, or sludges. Since October 2, 1967, there has been no documented
disposal of any liquid industrial waste at the G&H Landfill site. However, the
site continued to operate as a sanitary landfill.
2-6
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Besides being used as an oil reclamation facility, the site was used as a sanitary
landfill and was referred to as the Shelby Township dump (MWRC 1967).
MWRC personnel noted that large volumes of rubbish were disposed of daily,
backfilling was done using a crawler-type tractor, while other earthmoving
activities were done using a dragline crane. Codisposal of liquid wastes and
refuse is suspected to have occurred in the rubbish area of the Phase I Landfill
before the 1967 Consent Order (see Figure 2-2).
The landfill apparently operated under various State of Michigan permits from
1967 until its closure in 1973. By 1970, the Phase I Landfill contained refuse to
a depth of 20 feet, and the ponds that had been used for oil reclamation and
liquid waste disposal were covered. The Phase II Landfill was nearing
completion at that time, and the site was permitted to expand landfilling to the
Phase III area. Although plans for the Phase III Landfill originally proposed
rerouting the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal, the canal was not rerouted and is now
apparently filled with refuse in this area.
Landfill operations ceased in 1973. A final closure plan for the site (i.e.,
grading, capping, vegetating, groundwater monitoring) was neither prepared nor
implemented.
The site was subject to sampling events by the State of Michigan between 1973
and 1979. These events documented potential contamination of the Clinton
River by leachate seeps west of the Phase III Landfill and by oil seeps south of
the Phase I Landfill.
In 1982, the EPA's Field Investigation Team (FIT) initiated a site investigation
in cooperation with the MDNR. Based on that investigation, the site was placed
on the National Priority List in September 1983. Subsequently, the site remedial
investigation began in 1983. The site has been subject to various EPA
2-7
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
emergency removal actions since 1982. Previous site investigations and removal
actions are discussed in the following sections of this report.
PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS
From 1965 to the present, six investigations and reports have been completed at
the G&H Landfill site. MWRC conducted investigations in 1965 and 1966.
U.S. EPA completed a Field Investigation Team (FIT) assessment in 1982,
Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) in 1983, and Stage I and II Remedial
Investigation in 1987. MDNR completed a Supplemental Investigation in 1989.
PRE-1982 INVESTIGATIONS
The G&H Landfill site was initially investigated by MWRC in 1965 in response
to complaints by local residents (MWRC 1965). A field survey and hydrological
study indicated that groundwater contaminants from the site were migrating
south from the site and emerging in surface waters. Surface water and
groundwater samples were collected at that time, and some were found to
contain high phenol and chloroform concentrations.
In 1966, MWRC had 14 additional groundwater monitoring wells installed and
sampled (8 wells from the previous site investigation were still operable) in an
effort to confirm that oil from the site was contaminating groundwater (MWRC
1967). The investigation concluded the following:
• Groundwater flow was generally to the south.
• Seepage from the oil ponds was contaminating groundwater, which
then migrated beyond the boundaries of the landfill property.
2-8
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• Groundwater and surface water contamination was still occurring
from paints, lacquers, and thinners even though these materials
were no longer being accepted at the site.
In 1973, MWRC sampled surface waters at the site boundaries. High
concentrations of BOD, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrates, total coliforms, and
fecal coliforms were detected.
MDNR personnel visited the site in December 1978. Leachate was noted on
the west side of the Phase III Landfill, and oily seeps were noted south of the
Phase I Landfill. MDNR expressed concern about possible chlorinated solvent
and PCB contamination at that time, and in January 1979 outlined a sampling
and testing program to obtain data.
FIELD INVESTIGATION TEAM ASSESSMENT—1982
In 1982, FIT personnel under direction of the U.S. EPA conducted a
hydrogeological investigation at the site (EPA 1982). The primary objective of
the assessment was to determine the lateral and vertical extent of groundwater
contamination and contamination of the Clinton River adjacent to the site. Data
collected by this investigation was used to calculate a Hazard Ranking Score for
the site.
The scope of work included:
• Installing 15 water table monitoring wells (see Figure 2-3)
• Sampling and analyzing groundwater (18 samples) for inorganic
and organic parameters
2-9
-------
GH14A.B.C,
"\
} } RESIDENTIAL AREA
\v._..,, ,,,,,,,,. ...•.-., 23 . MILE ROAD -—
-Avfav^j-yj-.*— ••••>r:^^£;;y;:^yi££^^ x
» ••1XXgX«*S,,.X GH08A,B,C
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
LANDFILL BOUNDARY
x x x x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR
RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
MONITORING WELL-
SAMPLED BY FIT, 1982,
AND PHASE I Rl
LEACHATE
SURFACE
WATER
AND SEDIMENT
SOIL BORING
NOTE: 5 surface water and 5 sediment
samples were collected from the
Clinton River in September 1983.
Phase I Rl,
- Sampling
Points,
1983
FIGURE 2-3
FIT AND PHASE I Rl
FIELD WORK LOCATION MAP
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• Sampling and analyzing subsurface soil (12 samples) for inorganic
and organic parameters, grain-size distribution, and laboratory
permeability
• Sampling and analyzing surface water (6 samples) for inorganic and
organic parameters
The investigation determined that inorganic and organic contaminants were
present in groundwater, surface water, and subsurface soil at the site. The
calculated Hazard Ranking Score led to placing the site on the National
Priorities List in September 1983.
REMEDIAL ACTION MASTER PLAN—1983
The RAMP, based on a site visit and document review, was prepared for the
site in 1983 (EPA, 1983). The plan identified the scope of practical remedial
investigation activities, recommended initial remedial measures for the site, and
developed a site chronology.
STAGE I AND II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION—1983 TO 1987
The Stage I RI activities, conducted from 1983 to 1985, were directed primarily
toward determining offsite releases. Stage II RI activities, conducted from 1985
to 1987, were directed toward better defining contamination sources and releases
attributable to those sources (EPA 1987).
The objectives and associated scope of work for Phase I and II RI activities are
listed in Table 2-1. Field work locations for the two RI phases are shown on
Figures 2-3 and 2-4.
2-10
-------
Table 2-1 (Page 1 of 3)
SUMMARY OF PHASE I AND II RI ACTIVITIES
G&H LANDFILL PHASE III RI
Subject
Investigated
Source/Subsurface Soil
Phase I RI
Phase II RI
Characterize nature and
extent of hazardous
constituents at potential
source areas.
Scope
Drill 11 borings.
Collect 18 subsurface soil
samples and analyze for
HSL organic and
inorganic parameters.
Better characterize nature
and extent of
contamination of
subsurface soils, beneath
landfill waste or floating
oil layers, and at the site
boundary.
Scope
Drill 22 borings at the
Phase 1 landfill and 19
borings at the site
boundary.
Collect 15 samples from
Phase I landfill borings
and 21 samples from
offsite borings, and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Surface Soil
None.
None.
Characterize nature and
extent of contamination at
buried oil ponds and
solvent pits in the Phase I
landfill.
Determine eastern extent
of oil ponds in Phase I
landfill.
Characterize nature and
extent of contamination in
surface soils, primarily
from the Phase I landfill.
Excavate 16 test pits.
Collect 9 samples and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Excavate 18 test pits.
Collect 23 samples and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Groundwater
Define site hydrogeology
and obtain seasonal
groundwater levels.
Install 19 wells (3 to
replace inoperable wells
installed by FIT).
Collect 17 samples for
grain-size analysis and/or
Atterberg limits.
Better define site
hydrogeology.
Install 38 wells (4 to
replace inoperable
Phase I RI/FIT wells).
Perform 20 in situ
hydraulic conductivity
tests in wells onsite and
offsite.
-------
Table 2-1 (Page 2 of 3)
Subject
Investigated
Groundwater (con't)
Phase I RI
Phase II RI
Objective
Characterize nature and
extent of groundwater
contamination, onsite and
offsile.
Scope
Perform 2 sampling
rounds and analyze
samples for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Objective
Better characterize nature
and extent of groundwater
contamination.
Sample 57 wells and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Leachate/Oil Seep
Surface Water
Characterize nature and
extent of contamination in
seeps along southern
boundary of the Phase II
landfill and at the oil
seepage area.
Determine if contaminants
have migrated southward
offsite, and if so,
characterize the nature
and extent of surface
water contamination and
identify migration
pathways.
Evaluate the site's impact
on water quality in the
Clinton River.
-- Oct 1983, sample
27 wells
-- June 1984, sample
24 wells
Sample 7 locations and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Sample 11 locations and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Sample 5 locations in the
Clinton River and analyze
for HSL organic and
inorganic parameters.
Characterize nature and
extent of contamination at
seeps along the western
boundary of the Phase III
landfill.
Better define nature and
extent of surface water
contamination and
evaluate the potential for
migration and public
exposure.
Sample 4 locations and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Sample 15 locations and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Sediments
Air/Landfill Gas
Determine if contaminants
are present in sediments
south of the site, and if
so, characterize the nature
and extent of sediment
contamination.
None.
Sample 16 locations (of
which 5 are at the Clinton
River) and analyze for
HSL organic and
inorganic parameters.
None.
Better define nature and
extent of sediment
contamination.
Determine if landfill gas
is migrating northward
offsite.
Sample 14 locations and
analyze for HSL organic
and inorganic parameters.
Install 3 gas probes and
monitor with explosimeter.
-------
Table 2-1 (Page 3 of 3)
Subject
Investigated
Biota
Phase I RI
Identify critical receptors
of site-related
contaminants and
determine stresses on
those receptors.
Define potential pathways
of contaminant
bioaccumulation.
Scope
Collect 29 fish and 18
invertebrate specimens
from the Clinton River
and 9 mammals from the
site area. Analyze tissue
samples for selected HSL
organic and inorganic
parameters.
Phase II RI
Objective
Scope
None.
None.
GLT863/083.50
-------
v^c
'SW02
GH18B GP03
GP01
'- -x ^C
n/**» /SW04^
GH23A /'
.? LL01
OH. PQMO
LL03
RW20
Hi
LL
A RW07
— - fc -23-MltEROAE
~* _ , __ „ — x — X —x - * — »— > x
— "" '^ "" -'>',„,„, ,,,,,,„„ ,, A GP02
->t v ^ ^_ , ^^ RD02X «
^H7^"'^-^... %. Sa:fH° \
<*pTrw™™™w^v RL04 ":^ ^ i-rj0801 ^
"LUb ^v.,. ® \ \ ;j<-iv^™>^«^-':
°5® !:
RD8 i; ..:.-
° PHASE \ LANDFILL ••• •"• ''"
0
RD8X
rx
/ \
/ \
J ---*P/V- - .-.-.•.•.•.•.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•-•.-.•.-.•.-. •.-.-.•.•.•.•.-.•.•.-.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•-•-•
X- — X X; ~X — -^ •>. :;
\\ a ii i
-^"^•clil T1
••:.,.. .'"V. GH17A,B,Cj| | ^tt
'• '• ' flv i* i' ^1
!:H \ \. ./ :'-.. | 1 . |
:: ;;i • ^ :•• -v- ^ | ^,.,.,.....v,,,..- Q 3QO
: • : YAfjr1 ! ^ ^ APPROXIMATE
....'; v.. , . . 1 ;; SCALE IN FEET
'•';;•"'' \: \l
]\ '; x 1
/\ ;/ H LEGEND
:" -: : : ! := :^ •• •• •- ••• ••• ••• -.• .- •• .-. ••• ••• -•• •- •• ••• ••• •-•-.- 1 A M H P 1 1 1 RO 1
:' . - •. x ;: |:
:L ; i . ;i *& * * x x 1 1 « FPA RITP
RL17
PHASE U LAHDRLL
I05
LL02
/ ;:
...- •'/ ...-'•-..
/ • - -.-. . .
/'
"""'*••,
\
\.
\
rr***«*«^ •• •• -••-
susT , .:
.•• •- ::::..v;:
GH03A ;; '
22 ' MILE ROAD
SW08
H GATE
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The results of the Stage I and II RI led to the identification of:
• Contaminant sources in the Phase I Landfill
- Oil Pond Nos. 1 and 2
— Several drum disposal areas
— Solvent codisposal area
• Contaminant releases attributable to the following identified
sources:
— Oil floating on groundwater, migrating southward and
discharging to the oil seepage area, where it continues to
migrate offsite in surface waters
- Volatile organic compounds (primarily benzene,
ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene (BETX) compounds)
migrating southward in groundwater
- Leachate seeps west of the Phase III Landfill discharging to
wetlands on the edge of the Clinton River
— Poly chlorinated biphenols (PCB)-contaminated sediments
downgradient of the oil seepage area
- PCB- and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PNA)-
contaminated surface soils onsite
- Methane levels in the soil gas above the lower explosive
* limit along northern boundary
The EPA in consultation with MDNR concluded that additional data were
required to complete a risk assessment and feasibility study for the site.
2-11
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION-1988 TO 1989
A Supplemental Investigation (concurrent with Phase III RI activities) was
conducted by MDNR (MDNR November 1989). The primary objective of this
investigation was to collect additional data that "could be incorporated into
Phase III analysis and RI Report."
The scope of work included:
• A limited soil-gas survey
• Installing eight deep aquifer (lower sand unit or bedrock)
monitoring wells and eight leachate monitoring wells, and collecting
and analyzing two rounds of water samples from the wells
• Performing in situ hydraulic conductivity tests on the eight deep
aquifer wells
• Installing nine gas probes in landfill waste
• Collecting and analyzing surface water and sediment samples
• Collecting and analyzing surface soil from the landfills and adjacent
roads
MDNR intended the data generated by this work to supplement the Stage III
activities. The Supplemental Investigation Report summarized and presented the
data collected but did not evaluate nor draw conclusions from the data. Some
of the data collected for the SI have been used in this report to evaluate the
site.
2-12
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
EPA REMOVAL ACTIONS
From 1982 to present, four emergency removal actions have been conducted at
the G&H Landfill site by EPA, through the Emergency and Enforcement
Response Branch (EERB), formerly known as the Emergency Response
Section (ERS). The first three removal actions are completed and an On-Scene
Coordinator's (OSC) Report has been prepared (EPA 1986). The scope of
work for the fourth removal action has been completed, but the OSC report has
not been completed at this time.
ACTION NO. 1—1982
Removal action No. 1 was initiated in June 1982 at the request of MDNR. The
purpose of the action was to prevent public access to the oil seepage area and
prevent migration of oil contaminated with PCBs. A chain-link and snow, fence
was constructed around the oil seepage area, and three overflow dams were
installed to direct the flow of surface water around the oil seepage area.
ACTION NO. 2—1983
During the winter of 1982-83, the oil seeps extended beyond the fenced area.
Removal action No. 2 was initiated in July 1983 to correct this condition. A
temporary oil skimmer was installed to prevent floating oil from migrating, clay
barriers were constructed in the path of new oil seeps, and the fence was
extended around the perimeter of the new oil seeps.
ACTION NO. 3—1986
In April 1986, MDNR requested another emergency remedial action because the
clay barriers and site fence constructed in 1983 were no longer properly
2-13
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
preventing either migration of oil or public access to the oil. Removal action
No. 3, initiated in May 1986, consisted of the following activities:
• Onsite trails were blocked with earth berms, a gate was installed
across the main site entrance along Ryan Road, and warning signs
were posted.
• Isolated oil seepage areas were connected by excavating a collector
trench. A steel sheetpile barrier was constructed on the
downgradient edge of the trench to prevent oil from migrating in
groundwater beyond the collector trench. The collector trench and
barrier directed seepage flow to one discharge point, where a
series of pipe underflow dams and filters were constructed to
prevent migration of oil from the collection trench. A chain-link
fence was installed around the perimeter to prevent public access.
• A pole barn was constructed to store PCB-contaminated wastes
recovered during this action and anticipated future oil-recovery
actions (Figure 2-3). The storage building is 40 by 80 feet, has a
concrete floor with 6-inch curbing all around, and contains three
5,800-gallon tanks.
• Oil was recovered from the collector trench and stored in tanks
inside the storage building. Oil recovery was accomplished using a
vacuum truck. High viscosity oils remaining in the trench were
hydraulically pushed to the collection point using a trash pump and
hose nozzle attached to a backhoe bucket.
2-14
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
ACTION NO. 4—1987
Removal action No. 4, initiated in July 1987, consisted of the following work:
• A 3-mile-long chain-link fence was installed around the site
perimeter, including portions of the recreational area south of the
site.
• A temporary treatment system, composed of a utility shed and
aerator, was installed at the discharge point of the Oil Seep Area.
• Oils were periodically recovered and stored. A vacuum truck could
not adequately collect oil because the oil had developed a tar-like
crust from exposure to air. The oil was collected by scooping it up
with a backhoe and placing it on the edge of the collector trench,
allowing the liquid fraction to run off into a collection pit, and then
collecting the liquid portion with the vacuum truck. Sludges and
solids that accumulated in the storage area were covered with a
tarp.
• In April 1989, approximately 2,400 gallons of collected oil were
transported to a thermal destruction facility in Chicago.
GLT863/081.50
2-15
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Chapter 3
INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Investigation results are presented in three sections: Physical Characteristics,
Contaminant Source Areas, and Chemical Characteristics. The data used are
referenced as appropriate.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
TOPOGRAPHY
The G&H Landfill site is contained within the Central Lowlands physiographic
province. The local topography is flat with the exception of the channel (up to
50 feet of relief) that the Clinton River has cut through the unconsolidated
surficial deposits (Figure 2-2). Most topographic variations on and around the
site are the result of historic sand and gravel mining operations. The long
narrow ponds south of the Oil Seep Area (Figure 2-2) are indicative of areas
that had been mined.
The abandoned Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal runs parallel to the Clinton River west
and south of the site. On the western side of the site the canal is filled with
refuse and native soils. The canal was originally built along the break in slope
associated with the flood plain terrace of the Clinton River.
Large-scale landfilling (about 80 acres) has taken place at three distinct locations
within the site's boundaries. The Phase I Landfill is characterized by hummocky
3-1
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
terrain, resulting from failure to properly grade the site when it was closed or by
differential settling of the waste. The fill in this area is approximately level with
23 Mile Road on the north, and slopes abruptly at the east, south, and west
boundaries. The Phase II and III Landfill surfaces have a more even terrain
than the Phase I Landfill. Both landfills have steep, severely eroded slopes that
rise above the original ground surface.
Most of the study area has been effected by man's activities. Undisturbed areas
are predominantly limited to the Clinton River flood plain. The ground abruptly
slopes downward just south of the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal, then slopes gently
toward the Clinton River. Wetlands and old abandoned river channels are
apparent in the flood plain.
SITE DRAINAGE
The site is in the Clinton River drainage basin just above the 500-year flood
boundary (FEMA January 1970). River flooding is usually experienced in early
spring, predominately due to spring thaw or precipitation falling on frozen
ground. However, flooding occasionally occurs as a result of intense localized
rainfall during summer.
Site drainage patterns were evaluated using the Phase I RI topographic map
(Abrams 1983). Ryan and 23 Mile Roads were assumed to be drainage
boundaries on the east and north sides of the site because there are no culverts
beneath either road that could allow surface drainage on or off the site. The
Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal acts as the main drainage boundary on the south side
of the site, whereas the Clinton River is the drainage boundary on the west.
3-2
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The following points summarize observations relating to drainage across the site:
• Drainage patterns at the site are complicated by numerous
manmade surface features (i.e., the three landfills, berms, railroad
grade, canal, mining operations)
• Soils at the site are sandy, and display high infiltration capacities,
resulting in small runoff volumes
• Precipitation that falls on the site and drains to depressions on the
landfills will infiltrate through the wastes increasing contaminant
loadings to groundwater, while some will evaporate or be
transpired through vegetation
• Oil from the Phase I Landfill drains into a portion of the wetlands
created from sand and gravel mining operations immediately south
of the Oil Seep Area.
GEOLOGY
Regional Bedrock Geology
The preglacial geology of the area consists of the Mississippian Age Coldwater,
Berea, Bedford, and Sunbury sedimentary rock formations. These formations
consist of shale, shalely limestone, and sandstone that dips gently to the
3-3
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
northwest. The depth to bedrock is approximately 125 to 150 feet. These
formations generally do not yield sufficient groundwater for domestic purposes.
Site-Specific Bedrock Geology
Three borings drilled at the site intercepted the underlying sandstone bedrock.
Visual evidence from split-spoon samples together with a blow count analysis
indicate that the top of the sandstone is weathered and fine-grained. The depth
of the sandstone ranges from 50 feet at GH-1 to 563 feet at GH-8, which is
consistent with published literature for the top of the Berea Sandstone. The
literature also indicates that the Berea Sandstone is overlain by a thin veneer of
Sunbury Shale, which was encountered in several of the deep monitoring wells
installed by the MDNR.
Regional Surficial Geology
Bedrock is overlain by 100 to 150 feet of glacial drift beneath the site. During
the Pleisotocene Epoch several ice advances and retreats occurred over Macomb
County. During the late Wisconsinan Stage (approximately 9,000 years ago),
most of the county was a glacial lake or a succession of gradually receding lakes.
The G&H Landfill site is located on lake and deltaic deposits of clays, silts, and
sands (Figure 3-1, National Science Foundation 1964).
Site-Specific Surficial Geology
Based on RI borings, four stratigraphic units within the surficial deposits have
been identified. They are the:
3-4
-------
LEGEND
':':.• OUTWASH-
SANDS, GRAVELS, AND ADMIXTURES WITH
CLAYS SUBORDINATE.
TILL PLAINS- CLAY AND ADMIXTURES OF CLAY WITH SAND,
(GROUND MORAINE) GRAVEL, BOULDERS.
WATERLAID
MORAINE
CLAY AND ADMIXTURES OF CLAY WITH SAND,.
GRAVEL, BOULDERS, BUT DEPOSITEb IN
WATER, IN AREA OF THE GLACIAL LAKE PLAIN.
UPPER PORTION PARTLY REWORKED BY WATER
AND SUBSEQUENTLY VENEERED WITH LAKE CLAYS,
SILTS AND SANDS.
SOURCE: National Sanitation Foundation, 1964.
n GLACIAL LAKE
DEPOSITS-
LIMIT OF THE HIGHEST GLACIAL LAKE LEVEL
FIGURE 3-1
SURFACE GEOLOGY OF
MACOMB AND OAKLAND COUNTIES
G&H LANDFILLRl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• Upper Sand Unit
• Lacustrine Silt and Clay Unit
Till Unit
• Lower Sand Unit
A generalized stratigraphic column and typical materials associated with each
stratigraphic unit are shown in Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3 shows the locations of
four geologic cross sections of the site. The cross sections are shown on
Figures 3-4 through 3-7. The cross sections are based on borings completed
during all three phases of RI field activities. Phase I and II RI boring logs are
contained in the Interim RI Report (EPA 1987), and Phase III RI boring logs
are in Technical Memorandum No. 4 of Appendix A.
Upper Sand Unit
The upper sand unit at the site was deposited as a delta prograded into various
stages of glacial lakes: Maumee, Arkona, and Whittlesey (Dorr and Eschman
1970). This delta was formed by the ancestral Clinton River as it flowed from
the Birmingham Moraine to the Erie Basin. The delta is characterized by cross
bedded sands and channel fill deposits of predominantly sand and gravel.
The upper sand unit varies in thickness from 7 to 46 feet, but may be absent in
some locations because of past sand and gravel mining operations. This unit is
characterized by fine to gravelly sand with trace silt and clay. The upper sand
unit is generally thicker to the north and northwest and thinner to the southwest.
The upper sand in the northwest portion of the site is overlain by silty clay and
3-5
-------
STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
SOIL OR ROCK DESCRIPTION
700
680 -
UPPER SAND UNIT
660 -
640 -
I
te
TILL
UNIT
620 -
ui
600 -
LOWER SAND
UNIT
580 -
m
O
O
LU
560 -
SANDSTONE
540
FINE SAND
TO COARSE SAND
WITH GRAVEL
FINE SAND
TO
SILTY SAND
SILT
TO
SILTY CLAY
SILTY CLAY
TO
SANDY CLAY
TO
SANDY SILT
SILTY SAND
TO COARSE SAND
WITH GRAVEL
SANDSTONE
8
FIGURE 3-2
GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
silty sand containing natural organic matter. The upper portion of this unit is
generally coarser than the lower and typically contains loose to medium dense
sand and gravel (locally mined). The fine sand that makes up most of the lower
portion of this unit appears to grade vertically into the underlying till. The
upper sand unit contains thin, gently dipping and horizontal silt and clay seams
along the northern site boundary.
Lacustrine Unit
Thinly laminated fine sands, silts, and clays at the site were deposited in a deep
calm water environment and represent early lacustrine sediments of glacial Lake
Maumee. These deposits were laid down upon a surface of glacially derived
materials of the mid to late Woodfordian Age (Dorr and Eschman 1970).
In general, the lacustrine unit that sits on top of the till is characterized by thinly
laminated fine sand, silt, and clay. The laminations are oriented in both a
horizontal and dipping position which may represent of englacial or supraglacial
lacustrine deposits.
Till Unit
The top of the till unit at the site appears to vary in elevation by about 25 feet
(elevation 681.6 ft msl at GH-22B, and 656.4 ft msl at GH-17C). The surface of
the till slopes gently to the southeast, except near the Clinton River where it
slopes steeply toward the river. The till unit varies in thickness from 18 feet
between the Phase I and Phase II landfills (GH-118) to 116 feet in the southeast
area of the site (GH-1).
3-6
-------
a
0]
X
\S>Vx
KESiDSNTiALAHgA
GH16A.B.C
23 -
RW19
\ Q!L POND
U '-• •' '"-, GH17A.B.C
%•;•. = AUTOMOBILE
s:; • DISPOSAL
'• YARD
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
PHASE I LANDFILL
RB27 RW24
RD24 RD8X
PHASE III
LANDFILL
CO-BESPOSAl.
(SOLVENTS)
PHASE i! LANDFILL
~l^ /.,.•••
GH03A.B.C
22 - MILE ROAD
GH10A.B.C
1600'
LEGEND
55:::::::::::::**::::*:::ss LANDFILL BOUNDARY
x x x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH. STREAM, OR
RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
MONITORING WELL
FIGURE 3-3
CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
PHASE III LANDFILL
AUTOMOBILE DISPOSAL YARD
EAST A'
WEST A
720 n
-SOIL COVER
SOIL COVER
700 •
680 -
W
t"
\
LU
660 -
640 -
620
RD18
RAILROAD
GRADE
GH22
RB27 RW24 HB25
COARSE
UPPER
-SAND
RW21
UPPER SAND
COARSE
UPPER SAND
UPPER SAND
LOWER SAND
- 720
700
680
CO
f
- 660
i
a
w
- 640
620
200
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
CM
CO
cu
C/l
O
s
in
8
d
LEGEND
[Tj SILTYSAND
P-] FINE SAND
MEDIUM - COARSE SAND
1!. UPPER AQUIFER
'==• WATER LEVEL
~ (7-24-89)
SAND AND GRAVEL
M SILT
SCLAY
H REFUSE
SCREENED
INTERVAL
CONTACT BETWEEN COARSE & FINE
SAND IN UPPER SAND UNIT
NOTE: The depth and thickness of the subsurface strata indicated on these
sections were generalized from and interpolated between borings.
Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific
locations and dates indicated. Soil (rock) conditions and water levels
at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the boring
locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the
conditions at these boring locations.
FIGURE 3-4
CROSS SECTION A-A1
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
WESTS
720 -i
PHASE III LANDFI
700 -
V)
I
660
640
8
n
-------
o
o>
m
SOUTH
C
720
700
680
«
I
UJ 640 -
620 -
600 -
580 -I
CLINTON-
KALAMAZOO
CANAL
GH44
OIL SEEP
ABE<
PHASE I LANDFILL
AUTOMOBILE DISPOSAL YARD
NORTH
C1
23 MILE
ROAD
COARSE
UPPER
SAND GH
42
LOWER SAND
720
-700
-680
-660
UJ
-640
-620
-600
200
cr
8
LO
§
d
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
3 SILTYSAND
J
3 FINE SAND
MEDIUM-COARSE SAND
^ UPPERAQUIFER
.= ' WATER LEVEL
(7-24-89)
SAND AND GRAVEL
SILT
CLAY
REFUSE
SCREENED
INTERVAL
CONTACT BETWEEN
COARSE & FINE SAND IN
UPPER SAND UNIT
NOTE: The depth and thickness of the subsurface strata indicated on these
sections were generalized from and interpolated between borings.
Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific
locations and dates indicated. Soil (rock) conditions and water levels
at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the boring
locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the
conditions at these boring locations.
FIGURE 3-6
CROSS SECTION C - C'
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
n
eo
m
O
5.
i
8
SOUTH
D
720 n
700 •
680 -
O
I
tu
UJ 660 -
640 -
620
CLINTON-
KALAMAZOO
CANAL
200
PHASE II
LANDFILL
PHASE I LANDFILL
NORTH
Df
- 720
Railroad
-Grade
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
[Tj SILTY SAND
[^j FINE SAND
^ MEDIUM-COARSE SAND
•y UPPERE AQUIFER
'=.' WATER LEVEL
(7-24-89)
700
- 680
- 660
(fl
I
a
- 640
- 620
L- 600
SAND AND GRAVEL
SILT
CLAY
REFUSE
SCREENED
INTERVAL
CONTACT BETWEEN
COARSE & FINE SAND IN
UPPER SAND UNIT
NOTE: The depth and thickness of the subsurface strata indicated on these
sections were generalized from and interpolated between borings.
Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific
locations and dates indicated. Soil (rock) conditions and water levels
at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the boring
locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the
conditions at these boring locations.
FIGURE 3-7
CROSS SECTION D - D'
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The till unit at the site is heterogeneous containing in general what appears to
be thin discontinuous sand and gravel seams. In one boring along the southern
site boundary a 4-foot-thick gravel zone was encountered within the till unit.
The field investigation results indicate the till unit is probably continuous
beneath the site.
Lower Sand Unit
A layer of sand was observed in several of the borings penetrating the till unit
across the site. This sand layer appears to extend laterally beneath the site;
however, this unit was not encountered at boring GH-1C. This unit varies in
thickness across the site from 52 feet (GH-119) to 249 feet (GH-116). The
materials that make up this unit consist of fine to medium well packed sands,
with varying amounts of silt. In general, the differences between the upper and
lower sand units at the site are the hydraulic conductivity and the finer, denser
nature of the lower sand unit.
HYDROGEOLOGY
There are 113 groundwater monitoring wells onsite and surrounding the site that
were installed during the FIT investigation or the RI. Boring logs and well
construction details for FIT, Stage I RI, and Stage II RI wells are contained in
the Interim RI Report (EPA 1987). Boring logs and well construction details
for Phase III RI wells are provided in Technical Memorandum No. 4 of
Appendix A. Monitoring well information, including installation date, depth,
screened interval location, and measured in situ hydraulic conductivity is
3-7
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
summarized in Table 3-1. Based on boring logs and monitoring well water level
measurements, two hydrogeologic units have been identified at the site as
follows:
• The upper sand unit, which contains the upper unconfined aquifer
• The lacustrine, till, lower sand, and the shale and bedrock units,
will be considered to function as one hydrostratigraphic unit (the
lower aquifer)
Upper Unconfined Aquifer
Upper Sand Unit. A potentiometric surface map of the upper unconfined
aquifer based on July 24, 1989, water level measurements is presented in
Figure 3-8. Water level measurements obtained during the Phase III RI field
activities (November 29 through December 2, 1988; July 24, 1989; and
October 16 through 19, 1989) are included in Technical Memorandum Nos. 1, 7,
and 9 in Appendix A of this report. Additional potentiometric surface maps
were prepared during Stage I and II investigation and are presented in the
Interim RI Report (EPA 1987).
The potentiometric surface map, based on data collected July 24, 1989,
illustrates the piezometric surface in the upper unconfined aquifer (see Figure 3-
8; flow directions are also shown in the figure). Groundwater flow is primarily
south-southwesterly, except in the western portion of the site where flow is more
westerly toward the Clinton River.
3-8
-------
Table 3-1 (Page 1 of 4)
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
G&H LANDFILL PHASE III RI
Boring or
Well
GH01A
B
C
GH02A
B
C
GH03A
B
C
GH04A
B
C
Installed during Phase3
FIT I II III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
R
X
X
R
Depth
10
21
144
9
23
99
14
25
46
17
26
92
Location
of Screened
Interval
WT
US
S
WT
US
LS
WT
US
Till
WT
US
LS
Hydraulic
Conductivity (cm/s)
In Situ Laboratory
3.5 x 10'2
9.7 x 10'3
1.5 x 10'5
3.6 x 10-8
GH05A
GH06A
B
X
X
R
X
GH07A
GH08A
B
C
GH09A
B
GH10A
B
C
GH11A
B
GH12A
B
GH13A
B
GH14A
B
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
R
X
R
R
R
X
R
X
X
20
14
25
19
14
18
124
12
18
6
10
103
14
30
14
30
9
19
14
39
99
WT
WT
US
WT
WT
US
S
WT
US
WT
WT
S
WT
US
WT
US
US
WT
US
LS
-------
Table 3-1 (Page 2 of 4)
Boring or
Well
GH15A
B
C
GH16A
B
C
GH17A
B
C
GH18B
GH19A
B
GH20A
B
GH21A
GH22A
B
GH23A
GH24A
GH25A
GH26A
GH27A
GH28A
B
GH29A
B
C
GH30A
B
GH31A
B
C
Installed during Phase3
FIT I II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
III
R
R
R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Depth
mi
19
34
84
23
49
88
18
46
83
46
15
30
14
39
15
14
50
32
14
13
14
15
15
32
13
24
50
19
25
18
28
53
Location
of Screened
Interval15
WT
US
LS
WT
US
Till
WT
US
Till
US
WT
US
WT
US
WT
WT
LS
LS
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
US
WT
US
Till
WT
US
WT
US
Till
Hydraulic
Conductivity (cm/s)
In Situ Laboratory
1.0 x 10'2
5.2 x 10-5
6.1 x 10'7
5.5 x 10'5
4.4 x 10'3
1.6 x 10'2
6.6 x ID'3
1.5 x 1Q-5 (sand
9.6 x 10"6
1.4 x lO'5
7.7 x 10'3
3.2 x 10'3
1.1 x 10'2
4.9 x 1Q-4
3.3 x 1Q-4
2.7 x 10'5
7.2 x 10-4
6.2 x 10"4
8.2 x 10'5
4.8 x 10-8
& clay)
7.9 x 10'7
1.7 x 10-8
-------
Table 3-1 (Page 3 of 4)
Boring or
Well
GH32A
GH33A
B
GH34A
B
GH35A
B
GH36A
B
GH37A
GH38A
GH39A
GH40A
B
GH41B
GH42B
GH43A
B
GH44A
GH45A
102
103
105
RD2X
RL4
RW5
RL6
Installed during Phase3
FIT I II III
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Depth
mi
14
11
22
11
25
13
27
16
32
12
12
9
10
24
23
27
15
30
16
16
15
15
16
48
19
23
19
Location
of Screened
Intervalb
WT
WT
US
WT
US
WT
US
WT
US
WT
WT
WT
WT
US
US
US
WT
US
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
US
L/WT
WT
L/WT
Hydraulic
Conductivity (cm/s)
In Situ Laboratory
9.2 x 10"4
3.5 x 10'5
3.3 x 10'3
-------
Table 3-1 (Page 4 of 4)
Boring or Installed during Phase3
Well FIT I II m
RL7 X
RD8XX X
RL9 X
RL10X X
RW10 X
RW11 X
RW12X X
RW14 X
RL17 X
RD18 X
RW19 X
RW20 X
RL21 X
RW21 X
RL22 X
RW22 X
RL23 X
RW23 X
RW24 X
RD24 X
RL29 X
RW30 X
L01 X
L02 X
L03 X
Depth
34
39
18
15
16
23
29
31
27
35
29
78
13
26
10
27
14
26
21
44
43
25
8
9
8
Location
of Screened
Interval5
L/WT
US
L/WT
L/WT
L/WT
WT
WT
WT
L/WT
US
WT
LS
L
WT
L
WT
L
WT
WT
US
L
WT
L/WT
L/WT
L/WT
Hydraulic
Conductivity (cm/s)
In Situ Laboratory
8.2 x 10'3
3.2 x ID'2
2.7 x W4
4.9 x 10'3
8.5 x 10"*
1.9 x 10-4
aR = replaced
bWT = Potentiometric Surface, Upper Sand Unit
US = Upper Sand Unit
LS = Lower Sand Unit
S = Sandstone
GLT863/057.50
-------
GH14B
696.5
8
23 - MILE ROAD 694:7
GH17A
691-2
: AUTOMOBiLE
'% DISPOSAL
Y&8D
\ \S.
V ¥568.0
PHASE I LAMDRLL
AHEA
(SOLVENTS)
PHASE II LANDFILL
SEEPAGE " GH29A
= : I05
/SGH06A 686-9
i <685.9
GH32A
684.3*
GH40A
* 683.0
GH34A 0
681.3-
679.9
Gtt09A
679.4 «
""•'• '•: :• ''•'••••.•'.'.''''•••••.:
22 - MILE ROAD ™"""HH
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
LANDFILL BOUNDARY
U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE (TRACKS
REMOVED)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
(MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM
AT MONITORING WELL)
SELECTED MIGRATION
PATHWAYS
FIGURE 3-8
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE OF
THE UPPER AQUIFER
(July 24,1989)
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
In situ hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted on 23 monitoring wells
completed in the upper unconfined aquifer during the RI (see Table 3-1).
Based on these tests, the hydraulic conductivity of the upper unconsolidated
aquifer ranges from 3.5 x 10"5 to 3.5 x 10~2 cm/s, with a logarithmic average of
1.8 x 10~3 cm/s. This compares well with published values for fine to silty sands
(Todd 1980).
A range of groundwater velocities was calculated for the site based on porosity,
a low, high, and logarithmic averaged hydraulic gradient, and logarithmic
averaged hydraulic conductivity. Assuming an effective porosity of 0.30, the low,
high, and average linear groundwater velocity beneath the site are 30 ft/yr,
300 ft/yr, and 60 ft/yr, respectively. The highest groundwater velocity of
300 ft/yr is more indicative of the western side of the site along the Clinton
River were the hydraulic gradients become quite steep.
A water budget based on a flow channel analysis was performed for the site to
determine the amount of groundwater entering and exiting the upper aquifer
beneath the site (Figure 3-9). A sitewide saturated thickness of 20 feet together
with specific hydraulic gradient and conductivity data for specific flow channels
were used in the calculations. When no specific hydraulic conductivity data were
available for a particular area, the sitewide logarithmic averaged hydraulic
conductivity was used. Figure 3-9 shows the different flow channels and the
amount of groundwater entering and leaving the site, in addition to the
estimated amount of percolation contributing to outflow from the site per flow
channel. Based on these values, the total volume of groundwater inflow through
a plane perpendicular to groundwater flow is about 5 gpm. The total volume of
percolation contributing to groundwater flow beneath the site was estimated to
3-9
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
be about 39 gpm, with the total amount of groundwater exiting the site being
11 gpm.
The hydraulic conductivity of the upper aquifer at the site ranges from 3.5 x 10~5
to 3.5 x 10"2 cm/s, with a logarithmic average of 1.8 x 10~3 cm/s. The difference
observed in the water budget between inflow plus percolation and outflow can
easily be accounted for by high conductivity zones (coarser sands) associated
with flow channels 4 and 5 (see Figures 3-7 and 3-8). These high conductivity
zones will transmit more groundwater but, because of sparse hydraulic
conductivity data, the sitewide average was used. A portion of this difference
can also be accounted for by downward vertical gradients beneath the site
moving water from the upper sand unit to underlying units.
The upper aquifer is absent south and west of the site where it has been eroded
away by the Clinton River (Figure 3-5, cross section B-B'). Because of this the
upper aquifer must discharge either as seeps along the till surface to the river,
or directly into the river.
Lower Aquifer
Till Unit The lacustrine unit observed immediately above the till unit will be
considered to be part of the lower aquifer in relation to hydrostratigraphy. In
situ hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted on four monitoring wells
completed in the till (see Table 3-1). Based on these tests, the hydraulic
conductivity of the till ranges from 6.1 x 10~7 to 8.3 x 10"5 cm/s with a
logarithmic average of 3.2 x 10~5 cm/s. Hydraulic conductivities were also
estimated by laboratory methods (falling head permeability test with back
3-10
-------
6J9.3.5\ V.X.. 691.2 | \
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
; i' / Y&HD
"•;•. •is''^'. f
4,. ;;..- .~y,- :.-/
:'•'•' I ' i "? :
; / PJERCOLATIQIKI
U 8.8 gpm
:'
CHANN
^CHANNEL
CHANNEL
OUTFLOW
2.2 gpm
LANDFILL BOUNDARY
U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH. STREAM, OR RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE (TRACKS
REMOVED)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
(MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM
AT MONITORING WELL)
SELECTED MIGRATION
PATHWAYS
FLOW CHANNELS
GH40A
£-00 A _
683-° «6833
5
5
S
a
i
3
1C
E
S
3
o
d
'• /' < ': ' \JM '**• Jl *,~i^i" " OBJ.U ®-,
•.. '•••:...."' / \ \ ft; ^>i~*-gpl" fsus»]- • ':'" -
\ \ ?': \ ""•.-.... "'-•.!.."""••••—. «<33H03B ,'-'-".:~'';:::: -®:::~"£.T*"
\\lit \^"'"'"'"::;""::".^"^ •^r---' //: 681.9 „ ""C"'^ ' GH02A"--'-—:
\\i:t ^ GH04B ^"..,,... ••--, x'"? -.HC;.% ---.. 6830
,<"">• '---: .,. j if': 670.1 GH45A'^x.:v... /'#/ --•-^"r--..},. b8J'°
' ' ""•, "" • ,' '/ :' K7O ft •••-'•••. ' ' ' t s
r ,' -•• -...-.-' ,/ :. Ola.O .^- ,'f $', ' "• •-.. ?•••.,
// ''/ ::;:-~~":::..~.. .... ^.-'•"••""~"""'""~ " /'/', "-•-.....'^-........^^VTQx, ""'^^
/ ••---"-;-•.,-7.-...--^.'-" / / - ,.^ '"-••::': ::.::.:-•-!."^i<4A{;j
GH25A
•• \ .::
^n) 683.0 ^
;, -
; i. i;; M :GH01A( -!
••—-v'682.o/
GH07A'
674.8
GH44A
\
\
FIGURE 3-9
WATER BUDGET FOR THE
UPPER AQUIFER
(July 24,1989)
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
pressure) on four Shelby tube samples collected from the till unit (see
Table 3-1). Laboratory results estimated a vertical hydraulic conductivity range
of 1.9 x 10'7 to 1.7 x 10"8 cm/s with a logarithmic average of 4.9 x 10"8 cm/s.
Comparing the two sets of hydraulic conductivity values, the in situ values are
two to three orders of magnitude above the laboratory values. The in situ tests
measured hydraulic conductivity primarily in a horizontal direction, whereas the
laboratory tests measured the hydraulic conductivity in a vertical direction.
Vertical hydraulic gradients through the aquitard were calculated using measured
piezometric head differentials between the upper and lower aquifer divided by
the thickness of the till unit, which produces a conservative value in relationship
to contaminant transport. Downward vertical hydraulic gradients at seven onsite
monitoring well nests range from 0.03 to 0.85 ft/ft. The average calculated
downward vertical gradient through the till is 0.49 ft/ft, while south of the site
there appears to be a slight upward vertical gradient.
The range of average linear vertical groundwater velocities was calculated for
the till based on an assumed effective porosity of 0.1, the average vertical
hydraulic gradients, and the range of measured vertical hydraulic conductivities.
The calculated range of vertical groundwater velocities is:
• low velocity = 0.1 ft/yr
• high velocity = 1.0 ft/yr
• log average velocity = 0.25 ft/yr
Lower Sand. A potentiometric surface map of the lower aquifer based on
measurements made on July 24, 1989, is presented in Figure 3-10. Water levels
3-11
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
obtained during the Phase III RI field activities are included in Technical
Memorandum Nos. 1, 7, and 9 in Appendix A of this report. Groundwater flow
is primarily in a northeasterly direction. In situ hydraulic conductivity tests were
conducted on three monitoring wells completed in the lower sand unit (see
Table 3-1). Based on these tests, the hydraulic conductivity of the
unconsolidated materials of the lower aquifer ranges from 9.6 x 10"6 to
8.5 x 10"4 cm/s with a logarithmic average of 4.9 x 10~5 cm/s. The average
hydraulic gradient of the lower aquifer is 0.005 ft/ft.
A range of average linear groundwater velocities was calculated for the site
based on an effective porosity of 0.20, the average hydraulic gradient, and the
range of measured hydraulic conductivities. The calculated range of
groundwater velocity is:
• low velocity = 0.2 ft/yr
• high velocity = 2.0 ft/yr
• log average velocity = 1.2 ft/yr
Bedrock. In situ hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted on seven
monitoring wells completed in the lower sand unit by the MDNR. Based on
these tests, the hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock ranges from 1.8 x 10"3 to
1.0 x 10"6 cm/s with a logarithmic average of 8.1 x 10"5 cm/s.
3-12
-------
o
8
S
o
AUTO^OBiLS
DISPOSAL
YARD
:
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
** LANDFILL BOUNDARY
U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE (TRACKS
REMOVED)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
(MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM)
AT MONITORING WELL
INTERPOLATED CONTOUR
GENERAL DIRECTION
OF GROUNDWATER
FLOW
FIGURE 3-10
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
OF LOWER AQUIFER
(JULY 24,1989)
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
CONTAMINANT SOURCE AREAS
This section identifies the physical and chemical characteristics of the
contaminant source areas at the site. Source areas include the Phase I, II and
III Landfills and the Oil Seep Area. Data collected during all three RI stages
were used in this evaluation. Source area data collected during the RI was done
primarily in the Phase I Landfill because it is the primary source of
contamination at the site based on historical records and previous site
investigations. The site is defined as the area bounded by the fence erected by
the U.S. EPA in 1987.
Data collected during previous stages of RI include (see Interim RI Report,
EPA 1987):
• Stage I RI—11 borings, 18 subsurface soil samples
• Stage II RI—22 borings, 15 subsurface soil samples, 34 test pits,
23 subsurface waste samples
These RI source investigations identified three contaminant source areas in the
Phase I Landfill: Oil Pond No. 1; Oil Pond No. 2; and Codisposal Area (see
Figure 2-2). In addition, drum disposal areas were identified in the southeastern
portion of Oil Pond No. 1 and between Oil Pond No. 1 and the railroad grade.
The objectives of the Stage III RI investigation in the source area were to:
• Better identify drum and solvent disposal areas
3-13
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• Obtain chemical data from subsurface soils beneath source areas to
determine the vertical extent of contamination
The Phase III RI scope of activities consisted of:
• Taking 10 surface soil samples for geotechnical testing from all
three landfills (see Technical Memorandum No. 1)
• Geophysical survey (see Technical Memorandum No. 2)
• 36 test pits, 40 subsurface soil/waste samples (see Technical
Memorandum Nos. 3 and 10)
• 19 borings, 22 subsurface soil samples (see Technical Memorandum
Nos. 4 and 10)
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Landfill Covers
Phase I Landfill. The surface elevation of the Phase I Landfill ranges from 700
to 710 feet above mean sea level, approximately even with 23 Mile Road. The
landfill has many surface depressions, and ponded water was observed during
field work. The landfill is primarily vegetated by grasses, with few shrubs and
small trees.
3-14
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Based on boring and test pit logs from all RI phases, the cover thickness of the
Phase I Landfill ranges from 0.5-foot to 3 feet. Cover soil descriptions vary
from sand with gravel to silty clay; however, most boring and test pit logs
describe the cover soil as a silty sand. Geotechnical laboratory tests on five
cover soil samples indicate that cover soils consist of silty sand or silty sand with
gravel (SM, Unified Soils Classification). The potential for infiltration of surface
water through the Phase I Landfill cover is high based on soil types and cover
condition (i.e., sandy soil with many surface depressions).
Phase n and III Landfills. The surface elevations of the Phase II and III
Landfills range from approximately 705 to 710 feet. Both landfills have surface
depressions and ponded water was observed during field work. The Phase II
Landfill is vegetated with grasses, shrubs, and small trees; the Phase III Landfill
is sparsely vegetated. Both landfills have steep sideslopes with erosion gullies.
Based on boring and test pit logs from all RI stages, the covers range from
approximately 1-foot to 3 feet thick for both landfills. The log soil descriptions
generally indicate that the covers consist of fine-grained soil (silt or clay).
Geotechnical laboratory tests on two samples from each landfill indicate the
cover soils are:
Silt with sand (ML) to silty clay with sand (ML-CL) in the Phase II
Landfill
Sandy silty clay (ML-CL) in the Phase III Landfill
3-15
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The potential for infiltration of surface water through the Phase II and III
Landfill cover is low to moderate based on soil types and cover condition (i.e.,
sandy soil with many surface depressions).
Contamination of surface soils is discussed later in the report.
Phase I Landfill Refuse and Waste
Geophysical surveys (magnetometer and electromagnetic) were conducted in
November 1988 to better define areas of buried metal at the site. Based on
interpretation of observed magnetic anomalies, 36 zones of buried metal were
identified (see Technical Memorandum No. 2). Stage III RI test pits were
excavated in these areas in June 1989 to look for buried drums and to identify
solvent and oil sources. The correlation between interpreted zones of buried
metal and buried drums is affected by the presence of other metallic objects in
the landfill refuse. However, at least one buried drum was encountered in 26 of
the 36 test pits excavated during the Stage III investigation.
Source area boring and test pit locations from the three RI stages are shown in
Figure 3-11. Some borings outside the landfill refuse zones have been included
because they define the nearest data point free of source materials. Test pit
and refuse boring information from the three RI stages is summarized in
Table 3-2.
Contours showing the bottom of landfill refuse are depicted in Figure 3-12. The
contours were interpreted using data from all three RI stages (data points are
given on the figure). Observed elevations of the bottom of refuse ranges from
3-16
-------
3
§
23 - &1JL ROAD
X -J-"- X
•"""""V^,,,^^,,,,,,,^*,,^""""""'**,,,,,,,,^m>m^Q
TP25 • TP26
~ OSL POND
"" NO, 1
I FiSH POND Q
;•:•:•• ,•••• -•.. « :
OIL POND
NO. 2
ATOMOBILE
DISPOSAL
PHASE IL&NDRLL
Q TP28
TP32 D
CO-DISPOSAL
AREA
TP12A (SOLVENTS) ,.„
• 7PSM
PHASE ii LAMDRLL
GH31A.B.C ;:;:;
LEGEND
O SOIL BORING
MONITORING WELL
7PJt/» • TEST PIT -PHASE II Rl
TP10 g TEST PIT - PHASE III Rl
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: The letter "A" has been added to Phase II test pits to
differentiate from Phase I test pits.
FIGURE 3-11
SOURCE AREA BORING
AND TEST PIT LOCATIONS
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
Table 3-2 (Page 1 of 2)
SOURCE TESTING SUMMARY
G&H LANDFILL STAGE III INVESTIGATION
Bottom of Refuse
Ground Elev.
Location
TEST PITS
TP-1A
TP-2A
TP-3A
TP-4A
TP-5A
TP-6A
TP-7A
TP-8A
TP-9A
TP-10A
TP-11A
TP-12A
TP-13A
TP-14A
TP-15A
TP-16A
TP-16AA
TP-17A
TP-18A
TP-19A
TP-20A
TP-21A
TP-22A
TP-23A
TP-24A
TP-25A
TP-26A
TP-27A
TP-28A
TP-29A
TP-30A
TP-31A
TP-32A
TP-33A
TP-34A
TP-1
TP-2
TP-3
TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-8
TP-9
TP-11
TP-12
TP-13
TP-14
TP-15
TP-16
TP-17
TP-18
TP-19
TP-20
TP-21
(ft. above MSL)
705
706
704
706
704
706
706
702
704
704
704
703
705
706
710
706
707
706
706
706
708
708
706
706
609
706
704
703
707
705
704
705
700
700
704
710
707
708
707
705
706
706
707
706
701
699
703
701
704
707
706
705
709
705
708
Cover
Thickness
(ft)
Approx.
Depth
(ft)
Approx.
Elev.
(ft. above MSL)
Oily Layer Thickness
in Below
Refuse Refuse No. of
(ft) (ft) Drums
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
8.0
3.0
1.0
NA
1.0
3.0
NA
2.0
1.5
1.0
5.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
0.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
14
8
12
8
6
15
11
>12
>13
>12
>10
>14
>7
5
11
12
13
7
11
>12
12
13
>5
>5
>10
9
>12
>8
>10
11
10
13
15
8
10
>5.5
10
7
13
13
12
14
13
11
>14
12
>18
>11
10
14
14
10
16
14
14
691 (OR)
698 (OR)
692
698
698
691
695
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
701
699
694
694
699
695
NA
696
695
701
NA
NA (OR)
697
NA
695 (OR)
NA (OR)
694
693
692 (OR)
685 (OR)
692
694 (OR)
NA
697
701
694
692
694
692
694
695
NA
687
NA (OR)
NA
694
693
692
695 (OR)
693
691
694
2
>1
>3
3
0
2
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
1
>2
NA
NA
0
NA
>1
1
2
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
>1
NA
>4
0
4
0
1
0
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
10
6
0
0
2
4
0
3
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
NA
NA
3
4
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
4
0
1
3
4
NA
NA
>4
NA
0
0
0
>5
0
>1
5
0
>2
NA
0
>1
0
>1
0
0
0
>5
0
1
>5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
>5
3
0
1
1
0
0
>5
3
0
>5
>1
1
0
>5
>2
>5
0
0
>5
>1
0
>1
>5
0
3
1
-------
Table 3-2 (Page 2 of 2)
Location
TP-22
TP-23
TP-24
TP-25
TP-26
TP-27
TP-28
TP-29
TP-30
TP-31
TP-32
TP-33
TP-34
TP-35
TP-36
BORINGS
RB-1A
RD-2XA
RL-4A
RW-5A
RL-6A
RW-7A
RD-8XXa
RL-9A
RL-10XA
RW-11A
RW-14A
RB-15A
RB-16A
RL-17A
RD-18A
RW-19A
RW-20A
B-5A
B-6A
B-9A
B-11A
B-12A
RW-10
RW-21
RW-22
RW-23
RW-24
RB-25
RB-26
RB-27
RB-28
RW-30
Ground Elev.
(ft. above MSL)
705
708
706
706
705
707
706
707
707
706
706
707
707
705
710
706
706
706
708
708
707
706
706
707
704
706
705
705
707
709
709
708
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
708
708
707
705
707
708
708
706
707
710
Cover
Thickness
(ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
1
3
1.5
3
3
1
0
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
1
2
2
1.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bottom of Refuse
Approx.
Depth
(ft)
15
14
14
12
9
8
10
14
8
6
18
10
>10
8
18
10
7
18
13
18
21
12
15
14
10
18
18
18
19
8
18
43
12
12
7
7
9
16
13
14
14
18
15
14
19
17
0
Approx.
Elev.
(ft. above MSL)
690
694
692
694
696
699
696
693
699
700
688
697
NA
697
692
696
699
688
695
690
686
694 (OR)
691
693
694 2
685
688
687
688
701 3
691
695
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
692
695
693 (OR)
691 (OR)
689
693
694
687
690
710
Oily Layer Thickness
In
Refuse
(ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
NA
0
NA
5
0
0
0
NA
>5
5
>2
5
3
10
11
5
0
(685 to 683)
3
0
3
NA
(689 to 686)
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
0
3
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
7
0
Below
Refuse
(ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
>2
0
NA
>2
>2
0
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
9
0
2
5
6
4
6
0
No. of
Drums
1
3
1
>5
>5
0
0
>5
>5
>5
2
2
0
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(OR) Oily refuse
> Greater than value shown
NA Not available/not appropriate
The letter "A" has been added to Phase II test pits and borings to differentiate from Phase III test pits
and borings.
GLT863/044.50
-------
fe
t-
o
PHASE I lAN.DRtt
TP28
\
0 200
i
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
O SOIL BORING
« MONITORING WELL
2^ CD TEST PIT, BOTTOM OF REFUSE ELEVATION (MSL)
691
NOTES: The letter "A" has been added to Phase II test pits to
differentiate from Phase III test pits.
Average surface elevation on the
Phase I Landfill is 705.
FIGURE 3-12
BOTTOM OF LANDFILL REFUSE
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
686 to 701 feet. Refuse in the Phase I Landfill ranges from 5 to 20 feet deep.
The deepest refuse zones occur in the southeast corner and central portion of
the landfill, and the refuse is in contact with groundwater in those areas. The
contours shown in Figure 3-12 represent the bottom of refuse only. In many
areas of the landfill, 2 to 10 feet of oil-saturated soil lies beneath the refuse.
Of the 70 test pits excavated from all RI Stages in the Phase I Landfill during
all phases of investigation:
• No drums were observed in 34 test pits (49 percent).
• One to 5 drums were observed in 22 test pits (31 percent).
• More than 5 drums were observed in 14 test pits (20 percent).
Buried drums are scattered throughout the Phase I Landfill, and it is not
possible to define a discrete area of the landfill as a "drum disposal area."
Although some drums were observed to be intact, most were found either
crushed or partially crushed, severely rusted, and leaking. In some cases,
drummed contents were not visibly leaking because they were of a sludge-like
consistency.
Oily zones in and surrounding the Phase I Landfill are shown in Figure 3-13.
The following points summarize observations regarding oil contamination based
on physical (visual) evidence:
• Oily waste and soil is present in most of the Phase I Landfill.
3-17
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• Landfill refuse and the underlying soil is saturated with oil at the
Codisposal Area and at the two former oil ponds (see
Figure 3-13). Floating oil has been detected in monitoring wells
located nearby and hydraulically downgradient of all three of these
areas. The Codisposal Area is 100 to 500 feet away from and
hydraulically upgradient of the Oil Seep Area.
• Soils are oil-saturated or contain oily sludge up to 10 feet below
the landfill refuse over most of the Phase I Landfill (see
Table 3-2). In many locations, the lower 1 to 5 feet of landfill
refuse is also saturated with oil.
• In some areas, landfill refuse and soil is stained dark gray or black
but not saturated with oil. This indicates that oily soils may have
been mixed with nonoily soil and refuse, or that the materials may
have been burned.
A typical profile of Phase I Landfill refuse, from top to bottom, is described as
follows:
• 5 to 10 feet of residential or light commercial waste that has
undergone various degrees of decomposition. It consists mainly of
paper, household garbage and trash in plastic bags, wood and
lumber, appliances, auto parts, and tires. It is mostly dry or
slightly moist, with some wet zones.
3-18
-------
!/^*Z
'" i GH28A.B
(NR)
o
£
8
-\
TP31 (BSR/S) \
TP22A (SS}< \
TP23A(ND) \
^,**?,lr*UH / n f < i
~ Less;,-/ D / -/
/ •' I? „„,' ''TP16A / fL^-'l
f '/''-' (NR}f "^HL
>- ^ «/, - (ss)
' .... DIAIOX S ' ', •'
'&;,";,« 3 (BSR/S)
CO-DISPOSAL
AREA ,
Solvents) ,
RL10X (NR)
(NR) /
TPJ34 (BSR/S); *"•
jV^JW*****\-'\}"*y*fffff+r**f~£
I
I RW14 «
? (NR)
OIL
SEEPAGE :• .
AREA
LEGEND
O SOIL BORING
OIL SATURATED REFUSE/SAND (SR/S)
OIL SATURATED UNDERLYING SAND (SS)
BLACK STAINED" REFUSE/SAND (BSR/S)
NO OIL REPORTED (NR)
0 ^200
d
SCALE IN FEET
MONITORING WELL
TP11A n TEST PIT -PHASE II Rl
TP10 Q TEST PIT - PHASE III Rl
NOTE: The letter 'A' has been added to Phase II test pits to
differentiate from Phase III test pits.
FIGURE 3-13
IDENTIFIED OIL CONTAMINATED
SOIL AND REFUSE
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• 5 to 10 feet of industrial waste consisting of metal shavings and
miscellaneous parts, wire, rolls of fabric, wood, and 55-gallon
drums. It is usually dry at the top and wet at the bottom. If oil is
present, it is usually floating on the water and mixed into the lower
portion of the refuse.
2 to 10 feet of oily soil.
Phase II and III Landfill Refuse
Based on RI borings and analytical results, solvents and oily materials were not
found in the Phase II or III Landfills. The geophysical survey conducted during
Phase III RI determined that there was one strong magnetic anomaly in the
Phase II Landfill and none in the Phase III Landfill. Test pit TP-10 was
excavated at that location, but no drums or oily materials were found. The test
pit log and boring logs from both landfills suggest that the fill is municipal waste
(e.g., paper, plastic, glass, metal, garbage, and yard wastes).
The observed bottom of landfill refuse is:
Elevation 687 to 692 feet in Phase II Landfill
Elevation 665 to 670 feet in Phase III Landfill
At the Phase II Landfill, these elevations are within ±3 feet of ground surface
elevations to the south and west indicating that fill was placed above ground.
At the Phase III Landfill, the bottom of refuse elevations are approximately 20
3-19
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
to 30 feet below ground to the east, indicating that fill was placed in either the
Clinton-Kalamazoo canal or a terrace of the Clinton River flood plain.
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOURCE AREAS
Analytical results of samples collected from test pits and soil borings samples
during the RI were evaluated to identify the types- of contaminants and ranges of
concentrations found as potential sources of offsite contaminant releases.
Stage II RI analytical data were used to provide chemical information in areas
not sampled during Stage III.
Test pit samples were used to characterize the contaminants in the landfill
refuse and the immediately underlying soil. Soil boring samples were used to
characterize the depth of source contaminants in the underlying soil.
Soil and refuse samples collected during the Stage II RI were analyzed for
organic and inorganic constituents and oil and grease (EPA 1987). Soil and
refuse samples collected during the Stage III RI were analyzed for organic and
inorganic constituents, oil and grease, and incineration parameters. Sampling
methods, numbers and locations of samples, analyses performed, and analytical
results are presented in Technical Memorandum Nos. 3, 4, and 11 of
Appendix A.
Groups of contaminants were selected to more readily evaluate sources of
contamination within the Phase I Landfill area. By grouping various compounds,
primary sources and contaminant trends can be identified without listing all the
3-20
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
analytes detected in a given sample. The selection of contaminant groups was
based upon the following assumption:
• Compounds grouped together should have similar chemical
characteristics.
• Contaminant groups should include constituents of waste products
deposited onsite.
• Contaminant groups should include constituents detected in the Oil
Seep Area.
• Contaminant groups should include constituents detected in
groundwater monitoring wells.
The groups of contaminants selected to evaluate source areas were:
• Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene (BETX) compounds
• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PNA) compounds (see
Table 3-3)
• Chlorinated volatile organic (VOC) compounds (see Table 3-3)
The selected contaminant groups represent a range of chemical constituents with
varying characteristics and mobilities in subsurface environments. The groups
3-21
-------
Table 3-3
CONTAMINANT GROUPS
3/13/90
CHLORINATED
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
TETRACHLOROETHENE
PESTICIDES
4,4-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
BETA-BHC
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
GAMMA BHC (LINDANE)
GAMMA CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS (PNA)
1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
BENZO[A]PYRENE
BENZO[G,H,I]PERYLENE
BENZO[K]FLUORANTHENE
CHRYSENE
DIBENZO[G,H]ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
BETX
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
XYLENE (TOTAL)
PHTHALATES
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIOXINS AND FURANS
HEXA-CDD
HEPTA-CDD
OCTA-CDD
TETRA-CDF
PENTA-CDF
HEXA-CDF
HEPTA-CDF
OCTA-CDF
PCBs
AROCLOR-1242
AROCLOR-1248
AROCLOR-1254
AROCLOR-1260
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
were summed for each test pit or boring sample and plotted on maps
(Figures 3-14 through 3-16).
BETX Compounds
Total BETX concentrations in the landfill areas are illustrated in Figure 3-12.
The BETX concentrations shown usually represent samples collected from the
bottom of test pits, either from the bottom of the landfill refuse or from the soil
just below the refuse.
The highest BETX concentrations detected onsite occurred in the northwest part
(TP-1) and the south-central part (TP-6 and TP-9) of the Phase I Landfill.
BETX concentrations in these two areas were above 10,000 mg/kg. A large part
of the southeastern part of the Phase I Landfill had BETX concentrations in the
100 to 10,000 mg/kg range (see Figure 3-14).
The distribution of BETX concentrations with depth is shown in Figure 3-17.
The cross section shows the approximate thickness of the landfill refuse with the
estimated extent of soil and refuse visibly stained with oil. BETX concentrations
generally decrease rapidly with depth below the refuse and the visibly
contaminated soil. The cross section also shows the area of visibly contaminated
soil and refuse in the southeast comer of the Phase I Landfill (TP-11, TP-14,
and TP-15), which has been reported to have been used for codisposal of oil,
solvents, and municipal refuse (MWRC 1967). High BETX concentrations in
the 1,000 to 9,000 mg/kg range were detected in samples collected from the
suspected codisposal area.
3-22
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
A single test pit sample was collected from the Phase II Landfill, only
0.002 mg/kg of BETX contamination was detected in the sample. Soil boring
samples collected from the Stage I and II investigation on the Phase II Landfill
showed BETX contamination up to 0.358 mg/kg along the south side of the
landfill (Interim RI Report).
Samples collected from the Phase III Landfill showed BETX contamination up
to 0.98 mg/kg. Sample concentrations were greater in the southern portion of
the landfill (downgradient) than in the northern end indicating that there is a
source of BETX contamination in the Phase III Landfill (see Figure 3-14).
PNA Compounds
The range and distribution of detected PNA compound concentrations in the
landfill areas are shown in Figure 3-13. Three areas in the Phase I Landfill had
PNA concentrations above 100 mg/kg: the northwest corner, the south-central
part, and the southeast corner (see Figure 3-15).
The general pattern of PNA contamination is similar to that of the BETX
compounds. The largest area of PNA contamination is located in and near the
suspected codisposal area.
PNA contamination was detected from sample LO3. This indicates that the
Phase III Landfill is a source of PNA contamination.
3-23
-------
North
cc
&
§
300
GH1SA.B.C
BETX 1.2 (78.5-80.5)
~* ,
— X —
m- TDOC • • • ^^ I • • II • • • * • V
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
BETX 0.22 (9-11)
AUTG&OSSLE
DJSPOSAL
YARD
L01
BETX 0.38 (3-6)
HW21 0 10
PHASE HI
LANDFILL
GH30A;B ,;.
BETX 0.52 (12-14)
BETX 0.199 (24-26)
C5H28A.B
BETX 0.11 (9-11) "
\ L02
\ BETX 0.014 (4-6)
\ :
B16
BETX 0.13 (9-12)
<: BETX 0.028(12-17)
B15
BETX 0.555 (10-13)
PHASE!! LANDFiLL
L03\
BETX O.il (4-6)
\ :;:;.
:BETX 0.98 (24-26)
;BETXg.177. (49-51)
GH29A,B-,G—* !•—:
BETX 0.12 (25-26) X.J
? BETX 0,12 (45-46) ;;
-- -vi
-*.: :::::^i,_ J
.->-»' ;: "*
BETX 0.055 (28-30)
BETX 0,17 (13-15)
GH32A / .'GH33A.B .,•••::;
BETX 0.890 (12-16) . V BETX 0:2T (10-11)
.... : BETX 0.943 (9-10)
BETX CONCENTRATIONS (MG/KG)
> 10,000
: flj GH03A.B.C ;: '
BETX 0.026 (41-42)
22 - MILE ROAD
:,.,.:.:.:. :,:,x ,,, .j,..:. :•:. LANDFILL BOUNDARY
x x x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE (TRACKS
REMOVED)
MONITORING WELL
BORING
TEST PIT
TOTAL BENZENE.
ETHYLBENZENE TOLUENE &
XYLENES COMPOUNDS
CONCENTRATIONS (UG/KG)
SAMPLE INTERVAL (FEET)
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
(Figure 3-15)
NOTE: The lener '4' has been added to Phase II test
pits to differentiate from Phase III test pits.
FIGURE 3-14
BETX CONCENTRATIONS
IN SOURCE AREAS
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
I
£
_:
IT
..
ROAD- .~^^^--~-^— ---•-
PHASE iii
LAHDFILL
PHASE II LAMDFILL
\ W:: PNA 0.74 (4-6)
it •:-
GH09A.B
22 - MILE 8OAD
North
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
i f sftimvyifHAt. LANDFILL BOUNDARY
U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE (TRACKS
REMOVED)
MONITORING WELL
SOIL BORING
PNA 0.74 TOTAL POLYNUCLEAR
AROMATIC COMPOUND
CONCENTRATIONS (UG/KG)
(4-6) SAMPLE INTERVAL (FEET)
PNA CONCENTRATIONS (MG/KG)
>100
NOTES:
The letter "A" has been added to Phase II test pits to
differentiate from Phase III test pits.
PNA concentrations shown are for compounds listed in
Tohla '*-'*
Table 3-3.
FIGURE 3-15
PNA CONCENTRATIONS
IN SOURCE AREAS
G & H LANDFILL RI
-------
\ :i \' -v-••••••-•••-•:-:--:-•••-
••", & ft"""'*..^
•• ".:. j \
} -V.-. *. ^
S:\OiL \
\ i:; ' %\POHO%
^^^r^,:^-
/; -f -
23 - MILE ROAD
t s
s s
r*-~-"^^
x>. ^>sywo«««^*»*>>>»»^^'''-v'^^ ^^ft*fl'''%>*<% * P1TP25
- x
X-
I
6
5
3
CJ
x***«».
FSSH POND n
DISPOSAL
YARD
PHASH\LANDRLt
/• • -o
\
PHASE \\ LANDFILL
OIL /
SEEPAGE .-..|;
CHLORINATED VOC
CONCENTRATIONS (MG/KG)
LEGEND
O SOIL BORING
MONITORING WELL
TEST PIT
0 200
rJ
SCALE IN FEET
CHLORINATED VOC
CONCENTRATION (MG/KG)
NOTES: The letter "A' has been added to Phase II test pits to
differentiate from Phase III test pits.
Chlorinated VOC concentrations shown are for
compounds listed in Table 3-3.
FIGURE 3-16
CHLORINATED VOC CONCENTRATIONS
IN SOURCE AREAS
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
710 —i
700 —
690 —
UJ
O
I
UJ
680 —
670 —
660 —
650 —I
Northwest
A
TP23
TP21
150
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
(895)
INDICATES SOIL SAMPLE INTERVAL
ESTIMATED BOTTOM OF REFUSE
ESTIMATED EXTENT OF OIL/ SOLVENT
SATURATED REFUSE AND SOIL
BASED ON OBSERVATION
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (JULY 24, 1989)
BETX CONCENTRATION (MG/KG)
DATA INDICATED IS FROM THE ONSITE
CLOSE SUPPORT LABORATORY
GROUND SURFACE
TP09 RW22 TP32
TP15
TP11
CROSS SECTION A-A'
SEE FIGURE 3-12 FOR CROSS SECTION LOCATION
Southeast
A'
TP12
\
(9,200) (95)
— 710
— 700
— 690
(0
111
— 680 u!
§
Ul
— 670
— 660
— 650
FIGURE 3-17
SOURCE AREA CROSS SECTION A-A'
SHOWING TOTAL BETX CONCENTRATION
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Chlorinated VOCs
The chlorinated VOCs listed in Table 3-3 were selected to represent highly
mobile compounds in groundwater, some of which have been detected in site
monitoring wells. Only trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and chloroform were
detected in the source area soil and refuse samples.
The range and distribution of the detected chlorinated VOCs are shown in
Figure 3-16. Three areas in the Phase I Landfill had concentrations above
100 mg/kg: the northwest corner, the south-central part, and the southeast
corner. Chlorinated VOCs concentrations in the 1 to 100 mg/kg range were
detected over a large area in the southern portion of the Phase I Landfill, and
concentrations of less than 1 mg/kg were detected over the remaining landfill
areas (see Figure 3-16).
The distribution of chlorinated VOC contaminants generally follows that of both
BETX and PNA compounds, except that the chlorinated VOC contamination
occurs over a smaller area. The highest chlorinated VOC concentrations were
found northeast of Oil Pond No. 2, while the greatest extent of contamination is
in or near the suspected Codisposal Area of the Phase I Landfill.
Inorganic Analytes
The inorganic analytical results from the Stage III test pits were compared to
Stage II soil boring results to identify the extent of contamination. The most
probable concentration (MPC) of background samples at the 95th percentile was
3-24
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
calculated from four soil samples—(GH-16B (10-13), GH-16B (6.5-7), and
GH-18B (8.5-13.5), and GH-18C (28.5-30)—from the Stage II investigation.
The Interim RI and planning for the Stage III investigation concluded that
additional inorganic analyses of the soil borings were not necessary because
existing data did not identify high concentrations of analytes except in or near
the former oil ponds. These areas were covered by test pit sampling in the
Stage III investigation.
Table 3-4 provides a summary of the number of samples greater than the MFC
and the maximum and minimum values of each analyte greater than the MFC.
The Phase I Landfill is the largest source of inorganic contamination. All of the
analytes analyzed for exceed the MFC at one location or more except for
calcium. General patterns are the same as those for BETX, PNA, and
chlorinated volatile organics. The highest concentrations of inorganics are in or
near the oil ponds and the codisposal areas.
Results from the Stage II investigation show levels of inorganic analytes greater
than background for 75 percent of the analytes at one or more locations. All
samples analyzed for inorganic analytes were collected in or immediately
adjacent to the source areas. Samples from locations GH-22B and 1-3 had the
most analyte concentrations greater than background. These locations are on
the railroad right-of-way downgradient of Oil Pond No. 2.
3-25
-------
Table 3-4
COMPARISON OF INORGANIC ANALYTE RESULTS WITH
BACKGROUND MAXIMUM PROBABLE CONCENTRATION
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Background Maximum
Probable Concentration (MPC)
at the 95th Percentile
STD
198
ND
NO
1
0.15
ND
37968
2.4
1.7
1.3
770
1.30
19424
20
ND
ND
210
ND
1.1
68
ND
3
2
ND
Mean
1179
ND
ND
4
0.13
ND
66466
3.5
1.5
3.5
3731
0.65
17629
111
ND
ND
105
ND
0.8
51
ND
6
12
ND
MPC
(mg/kg)
1529
ND
ND
5
0.38
ND
138333
8.0
4.5
5.9
5112
2.34
51352
146
ND
ND
378
ND
2.6
161
ND
12
16
ND
Summary of the Stage III Test Pit Results
Number
of Samples
Exceeding
MPV
35
12
34
37
2
19
0
26
16
29
31
36
1
30
10
36
19
5
1
16
NA
19
37
13
Maximum
Value
Greater Than
MPV (mg/kg)
20300
299
41
10200
1.2
54
9840
67
4980
496000
4220
62800
15900
188
10900
1490
20
12
5340
NA
70
9670
146
Minimum
Value
Greater Than
MPV (mg/kg)
1540
1
1
6
0.53
0.43
9
4.6
6
5120
5
62800
152
0.09
5
382
0.39
12
168
NA
13
17
0.79
Summary of Stage 1 and II Investigation Results
from Non-Source Areas
Number
of Samples
Exceeding
MPV
7
0
0
7
5
1
0
6
2
6
7
6
0
8
0
4
6
0
2
5
3
3
12
2
Maximum
Value
Greater Than
MPV (mg/kg)
6710
39
3.2
2.4
121
6.1
41
20800
12
3260
15
1270
4.6
2420
14
29
69
2.5
Minimum
Value
Greater Than
MPV (mg/kg)
1650
6
0.4
2.4
10
5
7
5259
3.6
161
9.1
649
4.6
1180
12
17
17
0.3
NOTES:
ND = Analyte Not Detected
Background MFC's are calculated using results from Stage II samples GH-16B (10 - 13),
GH16B (6.5 - 7). GH-18B (8.5 - 13.5), and GH-18C (28.5 - 30).
MPC = exp(M log + {1.645 * S log)
Where: S log = Vln(CV + 1), M log = In (M) - [In (CV + 1)]/2
And: CV = Standard Deviation / Mean
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Other Analytes
The analytical results for test pit samples are provided in Technical
Memorandum No. 10. The results include incineration parameters for evaluating
thermal destruction of the source materials, pesticide/PCB analysis, and other
organic analytes. Of the other organic analytes, PCBs have been detected in
soil, groundwater, and sediment samples collected at the site, especially in and
near the Oil Seep Area.
PCBs (Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1254) were detected in 15 of 42 test pit source
samples. No pesticides were detected in test pit samples. Total PCB
concentrations ranged from 0.4 mg/kg to 180 mg/kg. Most detected
concentrations ranged from 1 to 20 mg/kg. The three highest PCB
concentrations were 180 mg/kg (Aroclor 1254) at TP-14, 90 mg/kg (54 mg/kg
Aroclor 1252 and 36 mg/kg Aroclor 1254) at TP-8, and 70 mg/kg (11 mg/kg
Aroclor 1242 and 50 mg/kg Aroclor 1254) at TP-6. Other PCB results are listed
in Technical Memorandum No. 10. The highest PCB concentrations were found
in the same general areas of the Phase 1 Landfill that showed high BETX,
PNA, chlorinated VOCs, and inorganic analytes (Figures 3-14, 3-15, and 3-16).
Incineration Parameters
Incineration parameters were measured in 13 of the test pit and boring samples
from the Phase I Landfill. The maximum heating value was 6590 Btu/lb with a
percent volatile matter of 55 percent in sample TP-15-01. This information is
3-26
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
summarized in Technical Memorandum No. 10 and will be used in the feasibility
study to evaluate the feasibility of incineration of the waste.
Summary of Source Area Results
The test pit investigation found large areas of the Phase 1 Landfill refuse
underlain by sand and gravel saturated with oil and solvents. The overlying
refuse was also found to be mixed with oily material at some locations,
especially the southeastern portion of the Phase 1 Landfill (Figure 3-13).
Analytical results from samples collected in the oily soil and refuse showed large
areas of the Phase 1 Landfill contaminated with BETXs, PNAs, chlorinated
VOCs, and PCBs in the mg/kg concentration range (Figures 3-14, 3-15, and
3-16). Inorganic analytes were also found to be elevated above concentrations
found in background subsurface soil samples (Table 3-4).
The results from the sample collected from leachate well L-3 indicate that the
Phase III Landfill may be a source of BETX, PCB, and PNA contamination.
The BETX results are higher than those upgradient in the Phase III Landfill,
and this sample is the only one showing PCB and PNA contamination in the
landfill.
Each of the selected source contaminant groups (BETXs, PNAs, and chlorinated
VOCs) were found in high concentrations in the same general site areas. PCBs
and inorganic analytes were also found in the same site areas as the other
source groups. The largest area found to show high source contaminant
concentrations is located in the suspected codisposal area in the south-central
and southeastern portion of the Phase 1 Landfill.
3-27
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION OUTSIDE SOURCE AREAS
Fifty-seven soil boring and one test pit sample were analyzed for target
compound list (TCL) VOCs, semi-VOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. A summary of
the subsurface soil sample results is presented in Appendix A, Technical
Memorandum No. 10. Select compounds were divided into four subgroups
BETXs, PNAs, chlorinated VOCs, and PCBs for the purpose of discussion
(Table 3-3). The Interim RI and work planning for Stage III concluded that soil
boring results for the Stage II RI for inorganic analytes were determined to
provide sufficient coverage of the site. A summary of the Stage II RI inorganic
results is presented in Table 3-4 and discussed below.
BETX Compounds
The soil sample from GH-15C showed BETX contamination 80 feet below
ground surface north of 23 Mile Road. This location is in the lower aquifer and
downgradient of the site. This result may be suspect because the groundwater
sample collected from this well did not show contamination and BETX
contamination has not been detected at this depth at any other location.
Soil boring results south of the Phase II Landfill and southwest of the Oil Seep
Area shown BETX contamination up to 0.943 mg/kg. The results show a
decreasing trend to the south, further away from the source areas (see Figure 3-
14). No BETX contamination was found south of the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal.
3-28
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Samples collected east of the Phase I Landfill from the automobile disposal yard
and on the edge of the industrial area showed BETX contamination up to
0.22 mg/kg. The samples collected from the industrial area are outside of the
site fence, indicating that contamination extends offsite.
PNA Compounds
The Stage III investigation did not show PNA contamination outside of the
source areas except immediately adjacent to the Phase I Landfill on the railroad
right-of-way (see Figure 3-15). This is supported by the Stage I and II
investigation results (see Interim RI).
PCBs
PCB contamination was detected in one location GH-28B, east of the Phase I
Landfill in the automobile disposal yard. Except for this location, PCBs were
not detected outside of the source areas.
Chlorinated VOCs
Chlorinated VOCs were not detected outside of the source areas.
Oil and Grease
The results from the oil and grease sampling were inconclusive. Laboratory
contamination resulted in these data being unusable (see Appendix A Technical
Memorandum No. 10).
3-29
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Summary of Subsurface Soil Contamination
BETX contamination was detected offsite southwest of the Oil Seep Area (see
Figure 3-14); however, no BETX contamination was detected south of the
Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. BETX contamination was detected to the east in
both the commercial area and the automobile disposal yard. PCB contamination
was detected in the automobile disposal yard. The source of the contamination
found in the sample from monitoring well GH-15 is undetermined.
SURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION
PNA Compounds
During the Interim RI, samples were collected from the uppermost 3 feet at 23
soil boring locations. The samples were analyzed for HSL volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds, inorganic analytes, and pesticides/PCBs. Two
groups of compounds (PNAs and PCBs) were detected with some frequency.
PNA compounds including those listed in Table 3-3 were detected generally on
the Oil Seep Area and on the Phase I Landfill (Interim RI Report). Surface
soil samples collected during the Stage III investigation were not analyzed for
PNAs.
PCB Compounds
PCBs were detected in the surface soils sampled in the Interim RI; however, it
was determined that additional sampling was required to better define the
3-30
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
locations of PCB contamination. An additional 26 surface soil samples were
collected during Phase III field work and analyzed for pesticides/PCBs, and
dioxin and furans.
PCBs were detected in 12 of the 49 surface soil samples collected. The
maximum concentration was 2.2 mg/kg in sample RL-06. Three areas of surface
PCB contamination were found on the Phase I Landfill (see Figure 3-18). The
first, in the northwest corner of the landfill near the location of Oil Pond No. 2.
The second area is the entrance to the site off of 23 Mile Road. The only
offsite sample to contain PCB contamination was SS-20, just north of 23 Mile
Road with a concentration of 0.38 mg/kg. The third area is in the middle of the
Phase I Landfill (see Figure 3-18). PCB contamination was detected in 4 of the
10 samples with concentrations ranging from 0.15 to 1.3 mg/kg. The area of
contamination is in the suspected Codisposal Area.
Dioxin and Furans
Dioxin and furans were analyzed for during the Stage III investigation because
fires onsite may have caused the formation and subsequent migration of these
contaminants. The sum of the concentrations of dioxin and furans have been
reported in 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD equivalents in Figure 3-18. The 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD
isomer is the most toxic of the dioxins and furans. Risk to dioxin and furans is
based on these equivalents.
Dioxins and furans were detected onsite on the Phase I and III Landfills and in
the automobile disposal yard. The highest total concentrations were detected at
3-31
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
sample locations SS03 near the north entrance to the site, and SS13 in the auto
disposal yard. Samples from both locations had concentrations of
0.00000078 mg/kg. Dioxins and furans were also detected offsite, north of
23 Mile Road at locations SS17 and SS18. The presence of dioxins on- and
offsite is scattered and appears to be unrelated to other site activities.
Pesticide Compounds
Pesticides were detected at 10 locations onsite and three locations offsite. The
highest onsite total concentration is 0.42 mg/kg in the middle of the Phase I
Landfill (see Figure 3-18). Four of the onsite locations area are within 150 feet
of either Ryan or 23 Mile Road. The three samples detecting contamination
offsite and the four near the road onsite suggest pesticide contamination is not
related to site activities.
Summary of Surface Soil Contamination
PCB contamination appears to be limited to three areas in the Phase I Landfill:
near Oil Pond No. 2, by the site entrance, and near the center of the site.
Dioxin and pesticide contamination is scattered both onsite and offsite. Dioxin
and pesticide contamination is most likely not due to site activities.
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
To evaluate groundwater contamination at the G&H Landfill, the site was
divided into 6 areas (Figure 3-19):
3-32
-------
i . . . , -O SS21
i.,:.. * ; : ..-•••••..:, X":N, f s
«: =.' ?:v :- X\>:'":x. i i F!gSJDB4T)At. AREA
^ SS20
""-• \ "~"*** r» 380 PCB SS19<~k «^*~» r» ^^
i. o"**^- ' ' '23 -MILE ROAD — ' <> o:t»025 Dlpxin
'•••.,.-••., . "X. \ ,- SS03 * -•-* Xi_..^..x— --x — - ** x ' * x — x *Q « x- x- . X| x-^
;f02 %iMr Rwig 57 Pest, ,--'"»''^^ =•' ??o10 - « f?L«t 5iP
'45QOP3B '^77 Pest. 300 PCBT ^ ^.i \ \o».PONO 0.00078 Dioxin:? ,_ -"*—— * ^ ;.; "^ , ,.. .. > ,..;-.,.
X^ •wa2*' \ ^RDIB IF"' ^rS^S*— ~ -,, NSS:?** % r,X4
/ % * '"<7« DOQ ':::r'':'- ••»««M«<«<«««WI«»K^IW RL4\j * :• J »'.. X : i '.
/ "x «In . : 'S RL060 ~ *"*. !/ 420 Pest I // C .„, ;;/
U * \ LAMDFSLL r - '%,. x- /'%., ^ !f* O /'"x S /,/ ',= ""
• :- \ i. s :? **%. " ^^^-,, 62 Pest-l \ i // u
= • \ •'::.. ••:• •'•• "•?. '•••••'#» ,/%»••'>•
i ;; \ '':::.. 1 * V;:«V,/. .-::..,^:r,. / \ « ih
••.'.. V ^. ^ / .•:• ,. , '?*», ""-••: "•;;--:-, . _„, RL10 / \ \ =V
'; •: > -:;. ::;: : " .,•..•••--•.:••... /:- *••:,,. •> -<... •RLQ mn PCB / 1 "i S813
\\ \ ; ,|t i / '"••^:.-,.. f: Xt/ v-,.:>,^13 Pest. ^/ | \ 0.00078 Dioxin x
\V \ i , /., ;:: ::: •<• , RL17 /;• -^._ 'x/^. / ; x"" | '" *. XV":!""* f*"5 x
*l " " .,• :;: ^SS25 X: -. • '' "::'::>- '-•..;-..> CO-DISfsOSAt / " % ::;. !""! ' •' \ \ ,
\ ... \ i " :;;< O ^^ x .--^r" n "*****• "' '""•*****<• AHSA (SOLVENTS) / | ; r::;;5""
X'^, \ I jj! =\ PHASE If LANDRLL S810 •^O" ^X^ /;> / j. \ L L
%\ \| 0.000023 Dfoxln;!:: : ; "" 52J?pest ^ mvu^4^'" ' /jfcT^^^^SSO? ? '""cilHESnAL ^
:; ' > '• \ ? '''••-. 5.2 Pest. 0«. / -'"" / &r ' f_A^ x *%b£:^ ''"**?,. ^oo PCB I.?
/ / ' / \ --.. ••.. ;l SEEPAGE AREA '""-;4:^.,v j g: / 71 ^•'/:'"*x% **<;>^< ' •• '**4*- "i
,.':•'" ..--" ..-' \;; V •, -i! ^< / ^ GH24M "N.^ j^/^^ "--•.... . '^i :.,. ^1 j"— 5
/r-x., ,;:^"' V\ v>;;';c'--4 -•--.. GH21Ar^^.l / :;"':':- ^J/.Ji^ ^/ \ 7^*^*1 /r-: :•"::>, hj
/•:',...-•::>" " /-.. s^: v\ I '^'\ x-;;"" ^i->-- ^:::^ 2& (\ ^::-'::^?;V->,l-:::-x VvCx\" "" " !j '
I /""" x- •• • -"".-- •--, \ \ W3 \ ,.,•.=."- •-. ..., - '''i /:D;:' '"xC: D-^ V;--:?:C "r/ " <\
II /\,/"""" ""' X\ \; 'X.. ./^^^x^x j ' i! "" '"" ::-,J'--,.'^,:^
[ X. / / ':. •. \ : ::.' ''••-.. '-: •.•••;.:•• • .^ . \ ••. .. '• '. '•• .. ''••••...<
"• \ / j ';-:v"-..":-..:.v-..C •.'.',;; .., ..:, •"" ] "" "--•^'.'"••::.-. '"":;..^"•";•v•••-^^^^".;;;v->''.::::;•'•~•••••L••i••.•.^..•:„,: A \:\}\\ :\
''-. '.. 1 ;•' "";:"..^... '"""•••••'••.... :-, ...... .7 . :-. .:--.. "•'-..,.. -•••-... ;;; ; 7;; ••"•..:::-: ..:•.-;..•;•: •..'':.:?'v.:.vlv;::::"^ ••:-v-"."':-: "' :'.:
f .•••••'':.•-•• ••••'••••••-:" '"•••-••••..... j I/-'/ "':':"'-':---...:-, "'••".•' ''''';:;':::::: •-.... ""••••'- :?'•'• ;""'- -V..^. •-•••••... ,,...:..;•;;••••• -::'^,:'-...:v...;7- :....j;.. ^_^_
o :: i: """"*•*••—... '""\\ ''''••••'•:•.•:••.. '"•''•:;:v:. :.::•• -..5^^t :'— -•- '" ' '"""*""'\-" I '• :U..\'V""!
-1 -: \ "'"•.:-. '"" ""'' -'•"••' .•.:•:;••-.:"::- ••'.'.' '•---... '"•••.. !> nU^:'-....
et ' ; \ '''''.-. "":":'~:-:::~'::-~ . '"'-•••... ''••••.. v \<\'\\\\ '•
1 • / \ V^,x .I'."^";:;£.S:^-::-' !fv •-.)
-' \ ^-. x/'-' "--•••I
: \ -V- ..•:>•"
\ \ ^::; 22 - MILE ROAD """I
\ '••-....,,..••-••-••••••••" ••--.... \ ;/
"••••.. *•
""-••••.,... ":.:.:.:-•••... \ \ .. •- \ 1
••. •• '•-. s . '•••.'••.
SS17
O 0.0001 2 Dioxin
.............,.,,,v.v,,,,,,..-.™.
64 Pest.
North
t
0 300
||^^^^^^^JT-~-^ I
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
QSS04
150 Pest.
< LEGEND
x.
< ::::::::::::::::::::::,:::::*>::::::::::« LANDFILL BOUNDARY
<
| x « x x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
| • PHASE II SOIL SAMPLE
££
TOTAL PCB COMPOUND
860 PCB CONCENTRATION (UG/KG)
.. , TOTAL DIOXIN & FURAN
1.66 Dioxin COMPOUND
K SS06 CONCENTRATION (UG/KG)
^ 2.7 Pest.
^- 2 7 Pest TOTAL PESTICIDE
<:;;;;• ' " COMPOUND
/'- CONCENTRATION (UG/KG)
<,
t,,. Nn NOT DETECTED
"X.
"
..-.•.•.•.-.."•••••I-..
:::" ""•"••••-..""'
f:
:: -:••--•.-..
f'-Y^-" FIGURE 3-1 8
* CONTAMINANTS IN
OTA^r- it o 111 mi
STAGE II & III Rl
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
GL065561.RI SITE AREAS 3-14-90 mms
UPGRAD1ENTAREA
LEGEND
PHASE I LANDFILL
AND OIL SEEP AREA
x ^~ •
""•••«*•"••••«.-
^ •••••••••••••
)i
kYK
, (; c-.^x^/ N
sF^^^S^-F^r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^oj^^^^
y- v-^S?»sr«S3=r=s..^J'.JBv {/ fl
^.^ -^^K ««"^*-:^^b's^4NfJ|
•"•» "*-v^ "* FUTDAMrP OOAn—*^s** J*SSfZ< ' '*» V*
>>,, "'*•, ^.. f*l i. t^Hj*4 EMI MMPH*C nWMU ^* -. **",„*, .*•• *j ir"v
xt«i;:^5t-^«,^.,---s-feM iii^
^-41
500
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
Landfill Boundary
U.S. EPA Site Fence
Gate
„«. Ditch, stream, or
f ft . f.f , ' '
nver
Trail
Railroad grade
•••» (Tracks removed)
NOTE: Locations are approximate.
v
* i
22 - MILE ROAD •
FIGURE 3-19
DESIGNATED SITE AREAS
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• The Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area
The Phase II Landfill
The Phase HI Landfill
• The Southeast Canal Area
• The Industrial Area
• The Upgradient Area
The areas were segregated based on the distinct landfills, land use, geologic
conditions, groundwater flow directions, and types of contamination detected.
Three rounds of groundwater samples were collected during Stage III RI
activities: November 1988; July 1989; and October 1989. The following
discussion is based on results from the first 2 rounds of groundwater sampling.
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Groundwater samples were collected from 51 existing monitoring wells at the
site between November 28 and December 2, 1988, for the Stage III RI (see
Figure 3-11). Specific groundwater sampling procedures can be referenced in
Technical Memorandum No. 1, Appendix A. All samples were collected and
analyzed through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) for the complete
Target Compound List (TCL), which includes organic compounds, inorganic
constituents, pesticides, and tentative identification of up to 20 additional
compounds. A complete list of analytical results and results of the quality
control review are presented in Appendix A, Technical Memorandum No. 10.
3-33
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Groundwater samples were collected from a total of 48 new and 26 existing
monitoring wells at the site between July 24 and August 1, 1989 (Figure 3-11).
Specific groundwater sampling procedures can be referenced in Technical
Memorandum No. 7, Appendix A All samples were collected and analyzed
through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) for the complete Target
Compound List (TCL), which includes organics, inorganics, pesticides, and
tentative identification of up to 20 additional compounds. Three of the
monitoring wells samples were leachate wells along the western Phase III
Landfill slope (Figure 3-11). The three leachate wells sampled will be discussed
separately. Eleven Special Analytical Services (SAS) parameters were also
analyzed for, including BOD, COD, TOC, TDS, NO2+NO3, NH3, total
phosphate, sulfate, chloride, alkalinity, and oil and grease. A complete list of
analytical results and results of the quality control review are presented in
Appendix B.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Fifteen volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in 40 of the
51 monitoring wells sampled during Round 1 and 36 of the 74 monitoring wells
sampled for CLP analysis during Round 2 (Tables 3-5 through 3-6). The bulk of
this VOC contamination was detected in monitoring wells drawing water from
the top 10 to 20 feet of the upper aquifer. The majority of the 15 VOCs
detected were found in the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area. Results show
that most VOCs detected in groundwater beneath the site are the BETX
compounds and chlorinated VOCs.
3-34
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-5
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS: ROUND 1
(ug/0
VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)
SEMI-VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzoic Acid
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
PESnCIDES/PCBs
4.4'-DDD
Phase 1 Landfill and
Oil Seep Areas
Number of
Detects
n=16
4
1
7
1
1
1
13
9
1
8
4
1
7
4
1
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
6
1
1
Range
1-3
3
1-140
3
11
770
2-1500
1-43
1
2-140
3-2000
1
1-64
36-8700
3
21-160
2-8
45
140
2
2-10
3-8
3
3
2
3-14
14-72
5
3-27
3
0.3
Phase II Landfill
Number of
Detects Range
n=8
4 1-18
4 4-56
1 14
2 3-4
1 6
1 30
1 7
2 2-3
South-East
Canal Area
Number of
Detects Range
n=8
2 1-2
3 5-60
2 51-140
1 2
4 5-14
1 2
1 9
1 5
1 3
2 0.29
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-5
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS: ROUND 1
(ug/i)
VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)
SEMI-VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzole Acid
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
PESnCIDES/PCBs
4,4'-DDD
Industrial Area
Number of
Detects Range
n=4
2 3-4
1 14
1 3
Upgradient Areas
Number of
Detects Range
n-4
1 1
3 3-22
1 1
1 6
2 2-5
Residential and
Industrial Wells
Number of
Detects Range
n=5
1 1
4 0.5-3
1 0.5
4 3-9
1 0.8
2
0.5-0.8
4 0.7-25
2 2
1 0.9
1 2
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS: ROUND 2
(ug/i)
VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
SEMI-VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnapthalene
2-methylphenol
4-Chloroanaline
4-Methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Benzoic acid
Benzo[b]fluroanthene
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
PESTlCIDES/PCBs
Aroclor-1254
Phase 1 Landfill and
Oil Seep Areas
Number of
Detects Range
n=20
3 1-370
3 2-8400
1 44
2 7-81
18 2-1500
2 2-4
6 6-410
8 . 33-2900
2 55-1200
5 110-5000
1 6
5 6-120
8 1-130
4 4-47
1 160
5 14-800
1 2
1 720
3 1-11
4 2-69
3 3-100
2 2-7
7 2-12
1 7
4 1-54
. 1 1
1 2
1 3
8 18-480
3 8-20
4 4-9
8 3-22
1 2
4 0.93-9.5
Phase II Landfill
Number of
Detects Range
n-3
3 11-24
1 15
1 1
1 140
1 3
1 2
1 10
2 2-3
Phase III Landfill
Number of
Detects Range
n-9
1 200
1 9
6 4-26
1 1
1 6
1 2
2 12-17
3 8-27
1 15
1 120
1 67
1 52
2 70-360
1 170
1 100
1 9
1 54
1 5
1 9
1 24
South-East
Canal Area
Number of
Detects Range
n=9
1 5
1 720
5 2-56
1 17
2 26-250
1 3
1 3
6 3-11
4 2-3
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OF ORGANIC GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS: ROUND 2
(ug/i)
VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene (total)
SEMI-VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnapthalene
2-methylphenol
4-Chloroanaline
4-Methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Benzoic acid
Benzo[b]fluroanthene
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
PESnCIDES/PCBs
Aroclor-1254
Industrial Area
Number of
Detects Range
n=4
1 3
1 6
3 7-22
Upgradient Areas
Number of
Detects Range
n-4
1 4
3 1-2
2 2-7
Phase 1 Landfill
Separate Phase
Number of
Detects Range
n=4
2 14-406
1 1630
3 13-4980
3 70-92340
2 358-497
1 50
1 363
1 42
2 12-702
1 . 19
1 16
2 105-1281
2 49-71
1 22
1 16
3 21-189
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The horizontal extent of the BETX contamination is illustrated in Figure 3-20).
The most predominant BETX compounds detected at the site in order of the
number of detects are benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and toluene. No toluene
was detected in groundwater samples collected in Round 1 at the site. The
five highest concentrations of the total BETX compounds detected were
(8,600 vg/1) and RW-14, (4,590 ng/1) at GH-24, (4,200 pg/1) at GH-38,
(1,790 jig/0 at RW-24, and (1,600 pg/1) at RL-6. A nonaqueous phase liquid was
recovered from two groundwater samples for analysis. One sample (RW-11)
had a BETX concentration of over 97,000 mg/1, the other (RW-5) 97 mg/kg.
Neither of these results was used to contour total BETX concentrations in
groundwater. In addition to the high level of BETX contamination, low levels
(1-30 yg/1) were detected site-side. The high BETX contaminated areas are
downgradient from an oil pond and the suspected solvent Codisposal Area.
The vertical extent of BETX contamination beneath the site appears to be
primarily confined to the base of the refuse and top of the upper sand unit.
Benzene was the only BETX compound that was detected at the base of the
upper sand unit in 7 of the 15 monitoring wells that had VOCs detected, while
Round 2 results detected ethylbenzene and xylenes at the base of the upper
aquifer. The only exception to BETX contamination beneath the upper aquifer
was 6 ppb of xylenes and 1 ppb of ethylbenzene detected in upgradient
monitoring well GH-16C. These low levels of xylene and ethylbenzene detected
in the lower aquifer at GH-16C were not detected in Round 2.
The horizontal extent and distribution of the detected chlorinated VOCs are
presented in Figure 3-21. The highest chlorinated VOC concentrations were
detected adjacent to the old solvent pond, with a lower level of contamination
3-35
-------
GH18B
RW30
9 (ND)
,v.v,.....v..,,,,.,...v.-.™.v.,.S:,
-•••.•.V.....-.-.. • ..'. \v.v.-.-. :•.
23 • MILE ROAD
* X— .... X
OIL POND
NO.
"" •-, i!
GH17A,B,C II
\
(ND) i}
AUTOMOBILE I \ ::
DISPOSAL
VA«D
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
RD24
„ *(143)
RW24
CO-DISPOSAL
AREA
(SOLVKNTS) v.
PHASE HI
LANDRLL
GH28A.B
//
(ND) (ND)
GH38A
(97,380 mg/kg,
XA1'
GH31A,B,Q
\ «!;
\ :•: .
»
— 100-—
"-•••-.. GH44A
%(56)
GH43A.B
\
(ND) (3)
(2)
22 - fxULE ROAD
GH08A.B.C
(ND)
300
- LANDFILL BOUNDARY
« U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR
RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
MONITORING WELL
INTERPOLATED CONTOUR
(UG/L)
TOTAL BETX
CONCENTRATION (UG/L)
(ND) NONE DETECTED
(97NAQ) NON AQUEOUS PHASE
Contours are based on the highest concentrations
within a well nest.
FIGURE 3-20
MAXIMUM EXTENT OF
BETX CONCENTRATIONS
IN GROUNDWATER - IN THE
UPPER AQUIFER
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
\
$
o
SES1DEMT3AIAREA
GH16A,B.C.
GH18B
(ND)
GH14A.B.C,
_ \l^k*/ | v
•••.-. •.:•*&••••••••••••••'•••'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'• •' .--f.:::: T
L;-.::;::;:::- • ••••••-•••••••••••
" * "*'~X~V'' f. (ND)
GH15A.B.C
(ND)
*
« , GH27A ;•; ....... .,::•.,..
FiSH POM
R[
(ND)
: (-J4) (ND)
AUTQ^OBiLS
OSSPGSAL
YARD
PHASE I LAMOFSLL
RW24, RD24
I /
(ND) (ND)
PHASE ill
LANDFILL
GH28A;B XW .
RW23 I /!; \ "
(ND)
GH30A.B
\
(ND) (ND)
AKKA
(SOLVENTS)
RW11
RL17(ND)
PHASE U LAMDRLL
GH31A.B.C
/\ii i^-:
(ND)(Nmx i;;,j,
(154HND)
00-
: GH26A
GH32A
(ND) GH33A.B...., ;::.-•^*" .;/
GH40A.B « '' ••,:-..:.,-L;":---"'' '-•••••• -•..
/ \ (ND) (ND)
(ND) (ND)
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
.::•: •: •: ,,..:..:• :• :• :• K:,x .:,.:•:..:. LANDFILL BOUNDARY
- - « « U.S. EPASITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR
RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
MONITORING WELL
INTERPOLATED CONTOUR
(UG/L)
TOTAL CHLORINATED
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION (UG/L)
NONE DETECTED
NOTES: Contours are based on the highest concentrations
within a well nest.
Concentrations shown are for compounds listed in
Table 3-3.
GH08A.B.C
(ND)
FIGURE 3-21
MAXIMUM EXTENT OF
CHLORINATED VOC CONCENTRATIONS
IN GROUNDWATER IN THE
UPPER AQUIFER
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
(plume) migrating around the sheet piling wall in the Oil Seep Area. The other
area of high chlorinated VOC contamination is adjacent to the Oil Storage
Building at GH-3. Low level chlorinated concentrations (1-25 jig/1) were
detected in the Industrial Area and the Phase III Landfill.
The vertical extent of chlorinated VOC compound contamination beneath the
site appears to be primarily limited to the base of the refuse and top of the
upper sand unit. 1,2-dichloroethene, chloroethane, and vinyl chloride were
detected at the base of the upper unit in 5 of the 15 monitoring wells with VOC
detects. The five monitoring wells mentioned are all in the immediate vicinity of
the Oil Seep Area. Round 2 sampling results showed 1,2-dichloroethene at
720 vg/1 and vinyl chloride at 250 jig/1 in GH-3B, and vinyl chloride at 26 ]ig/l in
GH-43B near the bottom of the upper aquifer. No chlorinated VOC compound
contamination was detected below the till unit, which lies between the upper and
middle sand units.
Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
Sixteen semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected in 18 of the
51 monitoring wells sampled for CLP analysis at the G&H Landfill in Round 1
and 25 semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in 33 of the
74 monitoring wells sampled during Round 2 (Tables 3-5 and 3-6). Like the
volatile organic compounds, the majority of the SVOCs detected were found in
the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area. The only exception was the SVOCs
detected in the Phase III Landfill at RL-29. All of these wells draw water from
the top 10 feet of the upper aquifer. Results show that the most prevalent
SVOCs detected in groundwater beneath the site are the polynuclear aromatics
3-36
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
(PNAs). Although the PNA contamination at the site covers a smaller area it
follows the same general pattern as the BETX and chlorinated contamination.
The horizontal extent of the PNA contamination resembles Round 2 results of
the BETX contamination in the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Areas
(Figure 3-22). The most predominant PNA compounds detected in this round at
the site in order of the number of detects are naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene,
and phenanthrene. The highest concentrations of the PNA compounds were
detected at monitoring wells RW-24 (644 vg/1), GH-38A (476 pg/1), RW-10 (180
jig/1), and RW-14 (121 pig/1). As discussed above, a nonaqueous phase liquid was
analyzed from two groundwater samples (RW-5 and RW-11). Results showed a
nonaqueous PNA concentration of 1,827 pg/1 and 599 pg/l at monitoring wells
RW-11 and RW-05, respectively. These results were not used in contouring
total PNA concentrations in groundwater. The only other areas with PNA
compounds detected were at RL-29 (81 jig/1) in the Phase III Landfill, and 1-5
(10 yg/1) in the Phase II Landfill.
The vertical extent of PNA contamination beneath the site appears to be
primarily limited to the base of the refuse and top of the upper sand unit. No
PNA contamination was detected in the lower portion of the upper sand unit or
below the till unit which lies between the upper and middle sand units.
Pesticide Compounds
One pesticide was detected in 3 of the 51 monitoring wells sampled for CLP
analysis at the G&H Landfill site in Round 1 sample results (Table 3-5). The
3-37
-------
1
<3
£
GH18B
(NO) GH14A;!f«,
North
,:,:.:*.:.:.:..:..:..:.:.:.>::,:.: *.:.:.:. LANDFILL BOUNDARY
« x x x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
DITCH, STREAM. OR
RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
GH15A.B.C
\
(ND)
"
RESIDENTIAL AREA.
GH16A.B.C
•:. GH17A.B.C =i :;
' \ *::;
(ND) (ND) |
D Sf'CSAL
YARD
05
(599 mg
NAQ)
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
RD24
«(ND)
RW24
PHASE i
LANDRLL
l... GH37A
(ND){ND);
^xX;1
GH31A.B.P
(1827mg/kg,
PHASE II LANORLL
..105.. ..-
OiL
SEEPAGE
AREA
'•-•• V.;.:. .GH26A
(Nb (ND):
-,... v., GH03A,B,C
'"••••••:^
GH02A',B',C"
GH01A;B,C
.:: 9>,/i\ 4 I
.. .••/•., \ ft--* -f
GH34A;B;*......
GH45A®
(ND)
GH43A.B
\
(ND) (ND)
(2) (ND)
22 - MILE ROAD
GH08A.B.C
(ND)
300
MONITORING WELL
INTERPOLATED CONTOUR
(UG/L)
TOTAL PNA
CONCENTRATION (UG/L)
NONE DETECTED
(NAQ) NON AQUEOUS PHASE
NOTES: Contours are based on the highest concentrations
within a well nest.
Concentrations shown are for compounds listed in
Table 3-3.
Concentrations shown at RW05 (599 mg/kg) and
RW11 (1827 mg/kg) are for samples collected the
from separate liquid phase. This data was not
used for contouring.
FIGURE 3-22
MAXIMUM EXTENT OF
PNA CONCENTRATIONS
IN GROUNDWATER
IN THE UPPER AQUIFER
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
one pesticide detected was 4,4-DDD at concentrations of 0.29, 0.29, and
0.30 vg/1 at GH-2C and 8C, and RL-4, respectively.
PCB Compounds
Aroclor 1254 was detected in 6 of the 74 monitoring wells sampled in Round 2
(Table 3-6). The six monitoring wells where Aroclor 1254 was detected are GH-
12A, GH-38A, RL-6, RW-5, RW-11, and RW-24. Aroclor 1254 was detected at
concentrations ranging from 0.93 to 189 jig/1 in RW-11 in the nonaqueous liquid
recovered from this sample. All six detects were located in the area having the
most observed oil in monitoring wells within the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep
Area. These monitoring wells draw water from the top 10 feet of the upper
aquifer.
Inorganic Analytes
Twenty-two inorganic analytes were analyzed for in 51 monitoring wells sampled
in Round 1 and 74 monitoring wells sampled in Round 2. The majority of the
inorganic analytes detected were found in the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep
Area. Most of the detected inorganic analytes occur naturally in the
environment, and detected values were compared to background concentrations.
A maximum probable background concentration (MPC) for monitoring wells
completed in the upper aquifer were calculated from upgradient monitoring
wells located north of the site. Background concentrations for the lower aquifer
were not calculated because the vertical extent of contamination generally does
not extend into this aquifer and because of insufficient data.
3-38
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Table 3-7 presents the maximum probable background concentration at the
upper 95th percentile of the mean for each analyte, the range, the number of
times these background concentrations are exceeded, and the arithmetic mean
for the six areas of the site. All but three of the inorganic analytes, antimony,
beryllium, and copper (excluding the leachate wells) analyzed from onsite
monitoring wells had detects that exceeded maximum background concentrations.
The following are trends observed in the data. The monitoring wells located in
the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area have the most occurrences and highest
concentrations of inorganic analytes above background. The seven analytes with
the highest number of detects above background are potassium, magnesium,
calcium, iron, barium, arsenic, and manganese. The higher concentrations of
these seven analytes tend to occur in monitoring wells completed near the top of
the upper aquifer in the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area. Several other
inorganic analytes were also detected above background, but with less frequency
that the seven just mentioned. These analytes include aluminum, cadmium,
cobalt, lead, vanadium, lead, chromium, sodium, selenium, zinc, mercury, and
silver. The frequency of detection for these analytes was also higher in the
Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area than any other onsite areas.
RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WELLS
Groundwater samples were collected from residential and industrial wells tapping
the upper aquifer east of the site between November 28 and December 2, 1988
(Figure 3-23). Groundwater sampling procedures are discussed in Technical
Memorandum No. 1, Appendix A. All samples were collected and analyzed
through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) for the complete Target
Compound List (TCL), which includes organic compounds, inorganic
3-39
-------
13-Mar-90
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-7
INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY FOR GROUNDWATER
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Upgradient Area (ug/l)
Detects
Above
Range MFC MPC
0 - 185 (1) 88
0 (0) 0
0 - 13.1 (6) 18
0 - 139 (7) 188
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
55,700 - 140.000 (8) 129.000
0-4 (1) 2
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
242 - 664 (4) 708
0 - 1.2 (1) 1
15.500 - 33.700 (8) 33.100
21 - 88.7 (8) 107
0 (0) 0
0 - 170 (1) 81
0 - 2.700 (7) 2.963
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
0 - 319.000 (4) 192.000
0 (0) 0
0 - 1.360 (6) 1,195
Phase 1 Landfill
and Oil Seep Area (ug/l)
Detects
Above
Range MPC Mean
0 - 169 (2) 16
0 (0) 0
0-307 (30) 46
0 - 5.990 (35) 628
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
9.090 - 456,000 (21) 130.000
0 - 13.6 (7) 1
0 - 54.4 (12) 3
0 (0) 0
0 - 131,000 (40) 15,600
0 - 29.9 (8) 1
0 - 119,000 (32) 42,000
0 - 2,060 (26) 237
0 (0) 0
0 - 109 (1) 7
1,370 - 83,100 (43) 26,700
0-1 (2) 0
0 - 8.6 (1) 0
0 - 143,000 (0) 75.600
0 - 13.5 (9) 1
0 - 1,730 (3) 286
Phase II Landfill (ug/l)
Detects
Above
Range MPC Mean
0-693 (1) 257
0 (0) 0
0 - 316 (9) 68
136 - 816 (9) 414
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
10.800 - 179,000 (7) 123,000
0 - 10.8 (1) 1
0-9 (2) 2
0 (0) 0
1,030 - 28,500 (12) 12,477
0 - 3.1 (2) 1
32,600 - 106,000 (10) 52.300
0 - 844 (9) 350
0 (0) 0
0 - 35.8 (0) 9
4,260 - 82,500 (12) 37,000
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
55,400 - 194.000 (1) 109,000
0 - 4.5 (1) 0
59 - 1,080 (0) 290
Phase III Landfill (ug/l)
Detects
Above
Range MPC Mean
0-654 (1) 145
0 (0) 0
10 - 44.5 (4) 26
0 - 1.470 . (4) 1.020
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
14.900 - 198.000 (5) 145.000
0 - 5.9 (1) 2
0-17 (4) 6
0 (0) 0
9.320 - 62.500 (5) 21,500
0 - 12.8 (3) 4
8.280 - 105.000 (5) 74.900
27 - 723 (4) 248
0 (0) 0
0 - 96.3 (1) 19
6,040 - 63,200 (5) 39,400
0 (0) 0
0 - 4.1 (1) 1
103,000 - 176.000 (0) 136.000
0 (0) 0
0 - 151 (0) 96
NOTE: MPC = Maximum Probable Concentration
-------
13-Mar-90
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-7
INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY FOR GROUNDWATER
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Southeast Canal Area (ug/l)
Detects
Above
Range MFC Mean
0 - 52.6 (0) 4
0 (0) 0
0 - 46.6 (10) 20
89 - 1.140 (16) 337
0 (0) 0
0 - 4.3 (1) 0
75,800 - 145,000 (14) 106.700
0 - 4.6 (1) 0
0 - 4.2 (2) 0
0 (0) 0
0 - 12.500 (14) 3,100
0-15 (1) 1
22,700 - 66,300 (16) 42,600
26 - 1.150 (11) 223
0 (0) 0
0 - 32.3 (0) 4
2.590 - 57.900 (19) 23,800
0 - 1.1 (1) 0
0 (0) 0
14,300 - 788,000 (1) 112,700
0 (0) 0
48 - 1,720 (1) 373
Industrial Area (ug/l)
Detects
Above
Range MFC Mean
0 - 6,010 (3) 498
0 (0) 0
0 - 15.7 (0) 4
0-390 (2) 94
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
57,700 - 174,000 (2) 98.100
0 - 170 (6) 21
0 - 27.5 (1) 2
0 (0) 0
345 - 23.800 (4) 2.100
0-34 (4) 3
17,400 - 47,900 (3) 25,000
35 - 1.200 (10) 280
0 - 0.9 (2) 0
0 - 50.1 (0) 4
1.460 - 14,100 (8) 4.177
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
22,200 - 448.000 (3) 96.200
0-30 (1) 2
122 - 302 (0) 99
Leachate Wells (ug/l)
Detects
Above
Range MPC Mean
3.960 - 5.020 (3) 4.500
51 - 77.1 (3) 72
21 - 39.7 (3) 31
230 - 71.3 (3) 443
0 (0) 0
0 (0) 0
159,000 - 265.000 (3) 198,300
16 - 38.2 (3) 24
0 - 60.8 (2) 47
19 - 22.6 (3) 19
28,700 - 48.200 (3) 39.200
0 - 18.4 (1) 6
74,300 - 166,000 (3) 129,900
685 - 811 (3) 714
0 (0) 0
33 - 67.2 (0) 47
52,400 - 222.000 (3) 114,200
0 (0) 0
0 - 2.5 (1) 1
151.000 - 454.000 (2) 270.500
0 - 25.6 (1) 9
0 - 1.310 (1) 437
-------
GLO65561.RI RES WELL SAMP 3-14-90
(1/3 Mile)
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
m
RESIDENTIALAND INDUSTRIAL
WELL SAMPLING LOCATION
GR1
1.1 OCA
1,1 DCE
4 1,2 DCE
4 TCE
OIL PONDS & SOLVENT
DISPOSAL AREA
FIGURE 3-23
RESIDENTIAL WELL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
AND RESULTS
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
constituents, pesticides, and tentative identification of up to 20 additional
compounds. Analytical results and results of the quality control review are
presented in Appendix B.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Nine volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in five of the wells
sampled. The bulk of this VOC contamination was detected in 4 industrial wells
east of the site and west of Ryan Road. Results show that the most prevalent
VOCs detected in groundwater from these wells are at the chlorinated
compounds. A total chlorinated VOC compound concentration of 38 jig/1 was
detected in GR-1, of which 25 yg/1 was trichloroethene (TCE). The
concentration of total chlorinated compounds in the other wells are GR-2
(19 ]ig/l), GR-3 (7 vg/1), GR-4 (6.3 jig/1), and GR-13 (1.7 pg/1). In addition 0.9
pg/1 of xylene was detected in GR-3.
Semi-volatile Organic Compounds and Pesticides
Only one semi-volatile organic compound, 4-nitrophenol, was detected in GR-2
an industrial well at a concentration of 2 yg/1. No pesticides were detected in
residential or industrial wells sampled.
The organic contamination detected at the residential and industrial wells
sampled in the vicinity of the site cannot be attributed to the site because a
source of chlorinated VOCs has not been found upgradient of the contaminated
wells. However, the types of contaminants detected in these wells are consistent
with waste types encountered at the site.
3-40
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Leachate Wells (Phase III Landfill)
Four volatile organic compounds (the four BETX compounds) were detected in
the three leachate wells (designated within an L prefix) sampled for CLP
analysis in the Phase III Landfill at the G&H Landfill site. All four were
detected in L-2 (65 pg/1 total BETX), with only benzene and toluene being
detected in L-l (12 yg/1 total BETX) and L-3 (8 yg/1 total BETX).
Two semi-volatile compounds were detected in leachate well L-2—benzoic acid
and 4-methylphenol—at concentrations of 170 and 70 jig/1, respectively.
Sixteen inorganic constituents were detected above background in the
three leachate wells sampled. Ten of the 13 compounds detected in these wells
constitute the highest inorganic concentrations found at the site (Table 3-7).
Leachate from the Phase III Landfill is contaminated and is flowing towards the
Clinton River.
Special Analytical Services (SAS) Results
CLP special analytical services (SASs) were used to analyze 11 additional
parameters in Round 2 sampling of monitoring wells (see Appendix B for
results). The SAS parameters are useful for developing and evaluating remedial
technologies, especially for groundwater treatment. They also are useful in
providing additional information on the extent of groundwater contamination.
The following summarizes the SAS analytical results.
3-41
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Values of BOD, COD, and TOC found onsite indicate biodegradable organics in
groundwater to be considered if groundwater could be extracted for treatment.
Maximum values of BOD, COD, and TOC were 13 mg/1, 651 mg/1, and 58 mg/1.
Areas with elevated concentrations of these parameters generally coincide with
other contaminants near the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area. Background
values for these parameters can be found within a few hundred feet upgradient
of the Phase I Landfill.
Chloride is a useful parameter in determining the extent of groundwater
contamination because it migrates at the rate of groundwater and does not
undergo adsorption or chemical reaction in groundwater. Elevated levels of
chloride are most apparent in the auto-disposal yard along the northeastern
boundary of the site. Maximum values for chloride in this area are 719 mg/1
and 555 mg/1 in monitoring wells GH-36A and GH-36B. One of the upgradient
wells at the site also had a high chloride concentration of 314 mg/1 (GH-14A).
In general, areas with elevated chloride correspond with other contaminants
previously discussed in the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area and the Phase III
Landfill.
The vertical extent of groundwater contamination is indicated by chloride and
total dissolved solids (TDS). Elevated concentrations of these parameters occur
throughout the upper aquifer. The elevated concentrations at the top of the
upper aquifer are primarily in contaminant source areas (i.e., Phase I Landfill
and Oil Seep Area and Phase III Landfill), while elevated concentrations at the
base of the upper aquifer are downgradient of these source areas (i.e., southeast
3-42
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
canal area). Again, it has been observed that upgradient monitoring well
GH-14A had an elevated TDS concentration.
Other parameters analyzed for include total phosphate and ammonia. Elevated
total phosphate concentrations were found in and near the Phase I and III
Landfills, and the auto-salvage yard. Maximum concentrations were detected at
RW-24 (2.50 mg/1), GH-30A (1.96 mg/1) and GH-36A (1.08 mg/1). Elevated
ammonia concentrations were generally confined to the same as that of COD
and TOC. Maximum concentrations were detected at GH-31B (41 mg/1), RW-24
(32 mg/1), and GH-33A (28 mg/1). These two parameters appear to be elevated
similarly in the Phase I and Phase III Landfills.
SUMMARY
Organic Compounds
Figure 3-20 illustrates that the horizontal extent of the low level BETX (10 to
30 yg/1) organic compound contamination at the G&H Landfill is quite
widespread with most of the high level contamination found in and near the
Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area. The vertical extent of the organic
contamination appears to be limited to the upper aquifer. Locations of the
majority of the BETX and chlorinated VOC contamination correlate to the oil
ponds and suspected solvent Codisposal Area within the Phase I Landfill (see
Figures 3-20, 3-21). There are chlorinated VOC concentrations which appear to
be associated with the oil storage warehouse.
3-43
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The BETX compounds detected at GH-16C may likely be the result of
downward migration along the borehole during drilling since they were not
detected from round to round. The farthest downgradient detection of organic
compounds was 2 jig/1 of a BETX compound at GH-9A This detected
concentration was approximately 1,300 feet downgradient from the Oil Seep
Area.
SVOCs were found to be limited to the area near RW-24 in the Phase I
Landfill and Oil Seep Area in the upper aquifer. The only other area with
SVOC contamination is the Phase III Landfill with 81 vg/1 of PNA compounds
being detected at RL-29. Although the PNA contamination at the site is not
nearly as widespread as the BETX and chlorinated VOC contamination, the
location of PNA contamination correlates to the oil ponds and suspected solvent
Codisposal pond in the Phase I Landfill (see Figure 3-22).
Organic compound concentrations were found to be the highest in the top 10 to
20 feet of the upper aquifer. Organic compounds were only detected in the
upper aquifer. Lower levels of organic compound contamination were found
toward the bottom of the upper aquifier in several wells primarily in the Phase I
Landfill and Oil Seep Area.
Inorganic Analytes
The horizontal extent of the inorganic chemical contamination at the G&H
Landfill site, like that of the organic contamination, was found to be quite
widespread and limited to the upper aquifer. Concentrations of inorganic
analytes exceeding the maximum probable concentration (MPC) of background
3-44
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
were attributed to the site. The higher concentrations of inorganic analytes were
found closely associated with the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area. Areas
downgradient from the Phase I Landfill sources were also found to show
concentrations elevated above background. It appears that some inorganic
contaminants are migrating laterally and vertically based on their proximity to
source areas and concentrations observed in monitoring wells completed at the
top and bottom of the upper aquifer. Some of the inorganics (calcium,
magnesium, and potassium) that migrate at the rate of groundwater and undergo
relatively minor adsorption or chemical reaction in groundwater can be a good
indication of the maximum lateral extent of contamination. In shallow
monitoring wells elevated concentrations of these chemicals were observed as far
south as GH-10A 2,000 feet south of the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. The
detected elevated inorganic constituents, like the organic contaminants, appear to
be greater toward the top of the upper aquifer. However, several elevated
inorganic chemicals were also detected at the base of the upper aquifer. It
appears that the lower aquifer has not been affected.
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Surface Water
In the Phase III field investigation, six surface water samples were collected from
the Oil Seep Area. Sampling locations and the corresponding organic results are
presented in Figure 3-24 and 3-25. Analytical results are presented in
Appendix A, Technical Memorandum No. 10. Detailed sampling procedures are
presented in Technical Memorandum No. 7. Surface water samples were
analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides and PCBs. Samples were also
3-45
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
submitted for analysis of inorganic analytes but the data have not yet been
received as of March 1990.
BETX Compounds
Three samples (SW-1, SW-3, and SW-5) were taken of the separate phase oily
liquid floating on the oil seep pond water. Three samples (SW-2, SW-4, and
SW-5) were taken from the water below the floating separate phase layer (see
Figure 3-24). BETX compounds toluene and xylene were found in the oily layer
in total concentrations up to 8,000 vg/kg.
Xylene, the only BETX compound detected, was found in only one water
sample, at a concentration of 1,000 vg/kg. The water phase samples were
analyzed by high concentration CLP procedures; low concentrations of organic
compounds would not be detected with this type of procedure because detection
limits are three orders of magnitude higher than those from routine analysis.
BETX contamination was detected during Stages I and II sampling from the
ponds south and east of the Oil Seep Area, along the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal
and in the Clinton River (see Figure 3-23). A decreasing trend in BETX
concentrations is evident from the Oil Seep Area to the ponds southeast of the
Oil Seep Area and finally to the Clinton River where concentrations less than
13 jig/1 were detected.
Chlorinated VOCs
3-46
-------
x
5
OiU P.OMD
NO. 3
PHASE I LAHDFiLL
PHASE US
LANDFILL
CG-OJSPOSA!.
AREA (SOLVENTS}
SW03
8,000
SD02
179,000
•- > '-: o*
'
PHASE ii LMJDRLL
SW02
1000
SDO 1
176,000
f mi
: SD11
- 140 Hi
22 • MLE ROAD
X
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
: •: •: «**» :.:. :::::•:::.:.: :•:::• LANDFILL BOUNDARY
x x x x U.S. EPASITE FENCE
^ GATE
•i
DITCH, STREAM. OR
' •...•'"'•• RIVER
:.-• ••;•; r:" :: TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
!! ;! :! (TRACKS REMOVED)
SD01
SW01
SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATION
SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING LOCATION
NOTES: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
CONCENTRATIONS:
SEDIMENTS ug/kg
SURFACE WATER ug/l
BETXs INCLUDE:
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylene
ND = Not Detected
FIGURE 3-24
BETX CONCENTRATION
IN SURFACE WATER
AND SEDIMENT
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
EAST e SW141 (SURFACE)
SW14 2 (1' OFF BOTTOM)
n
Q
LU
OT
WEST * SW01 2 (SURFACE)
POttD SW01 2 (1' OFF BOTTOM)
RES30ENT1ALARE-A
/ * -C-A X— :x — »
Oil
POND
NO. 2
X -*x ' '•
>'• X '-••••-,..
AUTO&QSilE
DiSPOSAL
YARD
PHASE I LANDFILL
PHASE HI
LANDFILL
CO-0JSPCSAI
&R£A
(SOLVENTS)
PHASE ii LANDFILL
SS13100600
SS134570
COMMBHCtAL ^
AREA
SV^009 5080 Q.SW-009 590
22 - MILE ROAD
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
LANDFILL BOUNDARY
U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR
RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
^ 1983 SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
1986 SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
1983 SURFACE WATER
LOCATIONS
1986 SURFACE WATER
LOCATIONS
ND NOT DETECTED
NOTES: Samples were collected from August to
November 1983 and during July and August
1986.
Values are the sum of concentrations of
benzene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes and
toluene in micrograms per kilogram. Samples
were taken from sediment samples.
Detection limits may vary with sample location.
FIGURE 3-25
BETX CONCENTRATIONS IN
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
FROM INTERIM Rl
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Concentrations (<38 jig/1) of chlorinated VOC were detected in the Stage I and
II investigation samples south and southeast of the Oil Seep Area and in one
sample from the canal. Chlorinated VOCs were detected at concentrations less
that 24 yg/1 in the Clinton River.
PCBs
PCBs were detected in all of the separate phase oily samples from the Oil Seep
Area in concentrations from 526,000 jig/kg to 443,000 jig/kg. Only one of the
surface water samples contained PCB contamination, at a concentration of
445,000 iig/kg. This sample (SW-5) was from the Oil Seep Area.
PNAs
PNAs were detected in all of the separate phase oily samples in concentrations
from 89,000 to 139,000 yg/kg. Samples collected during the Stage I and II RI
from ponds south and southeast of the Oil Seep Area contained PNAs in the
same locations at which the highest BETX contamination was found.
Phthalates
Separate phase oily samples showed phthalate contamination ranging from
663,000 to 4,000,000 jig/kg. Lower levels of phthalate contamination were
detected in samples collected during the Stage I and II RI from the Clinton
River, and from the areas with the highest BETX contamination.
3-47
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Inorganic Analytes
Supplemental surface water and sediment samples were taken in 1989 by the
MDNR. Samples were taken from the Spring Lake residential area north of
23 Mile Road to be used as background surface water and sediment samples.
These samples were used to determine inorganic background surface water
concentrations (Table 3-8). Surface water inorganic analyte concentrations were
compared with the maximum detected surface water inorganic analyte
background concentrations. No data have been received for the inorganic
analysis of six surface water samples from the Stage III RI as of March 1990.
Surface water data from the Stage I and II field investigations were found to
have concentrations of arsenic from 12 to 290 yg/1 at 15 locations. Other
sample locations at which arsenic was detected were north of the Phase III
landfill, and south and southeast of the Oil Seep Area. Cadmium was found in
the separate phase floating liquid sample from the Oil Seep Area at a
concentration of 18 yg/1.
SEDIMENT
Seventeen sediment samples were taken during Phase III of the RI field
investigation. Sampling locations and the corresponding organic results are
presented in Figure 3-26. Analytical results are found in Technical
Memorandum No. 10. A description of sampling procedures is found in
Technical Memorandum No. 9. Sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and inorganic analytes. The high concentration
inorganic results have not been received as of March 1990 (seven samples).
3-48
-------
Table 3-8
INORGANIC BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER
G&H LANDFILL
(ug/i)
GH-MISW12-01 GH-MISW13-01
Maximum
Minimum Average
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
172
24
1.6
42.5
1
4
48700
5
4
9
572
1
26000
32.9
0.2
5
2630
1
4
48800
2
3
34.1
50.9
J
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
UJ
U
J
UJ
U
UJ
U
UJ
J
47
24
1.2
42.8
1
4
45100
5
4
6.4
119
1
24900
8.5
0.2
5
2380
1
4
48800
2
3
32.1
98.6
J
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
U
J
UJ
U
UJ
U
UJ
J
172
ND
1.6
42.8
ND
ND
48700
ND
ND
ND
572
ND
26000
32.9
ND
ND
2630
ND
ND
48800
ND
ND
ND
98.6
47
ND
1.2
42.5
ND
ND
45100
ND
ND
ND
119
ND
24900
8.5
ND
ND
2380
ND
ND
48800
ND
ND
ND
50.9
109.5
ND
1.4
42.65
ND
ND
46900
ND
ND
ND
345.5
ND
25450
20.7
ND
ND
2505
ND
ND
48800
ND
ND
ND
74.75
NOTES:
Background sample data are from the Supplemental Investigation Report (MDNR, 1989).
Samples are not filtered.
J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity because quality
control criteria were not meet.
U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected.
UJ - Sample was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numeric value.
is an estimated quantity because quality control criteria were not met.
ND - Not detected.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
BETX Compounds
Results from samples SD-1, SD-2, and SD-3 collected from the Oil Seep Area
contained BETX contamination up to 179,000 jig/kg (see Figure 3-24). Samples
collected from the ponds to the southeast of the Oil Seep Area showed
decreasing amounts of BETX contamination the further away from the seep they
were collected. Samples collected from along Ryan Road BETX contamination
from 50 to 140 jig/kg. No BETX contamination was detected in the sediments
along the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal.
PNA Compounds
Concentrations of PNAs were detected in the Oil Seep Area from 4,000 jig/kg to
26,000 pg/kg. PNA contamination was also detected in the ponds along the
railroad right-of-way, in the ditches along Ryan Road and along the Clinton-
Kalamazoo Canal. PNAs were detected in sediments collected in the northwest
corner of the site in the pond and in seeps along the Phase III Landfill (see
Figure 3-26).
PCB Compounds
Samples from the Oil Seep Area contained PCB contamination up to
74,000 jig/kg. PCBs were detected in two sediment samples from the pond
south of the Oil Seep Area. The sample collected from the railroad right-of-
way, adjacent to the Phase II Landfill, showed PCB contamination of
24,000 pg/kg.
3-49
-------
n
CC
u.
CC
8
SD01
CO-DBK5SAL ,.
ABHA (SOLVENTS)
ND
21,000
SD12
7,710
11,000
' ~ SD09 ;
693
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
: •: .:..» :• ; ; xxx < •: •: **» :• :• LANDFILL BOUNDARY
—x x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
\ GATE
i
DITCH, STREAM. OR
RIVER
..-;;:::; TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATION (PHASE III)
SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING LOCATION
(PHASE III)
SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATION (PHASE II)
SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATION (PHASE I)
SW01
SS04,
SD14,
26,000 = PNAs
74,000 = PCBs
CONCENTRATIONS IN ug/kg.
NOTES: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
PNA CONCENTRATIONS SHOWN ARE
FOR THE COMPOUNDS LISTED IN
TABLE 3-3.
FIGURE 3-26
PNA AND PCB CONCENTRATIONS
IN SEDIMENT
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Inorganic Analytes
The supplemental samples collected by the MDNR were used to determine
inorganic background sediment concentrations (Table 3-9). Sediment inorganic
analyte concentrations were compared with the maximum detected inorganic
analyte background sediment concentrations. In decreasing order of analytes
exceeding the maximum background concentrations from the Phase III sediment
samples, analytes include copper, zinc, potassium, lead, cobalt, beryllium, barium,
mercury, and cadmium (Table 3-10). Samples that had the most number of
analytes exceeding the maximum background concentrations were found at
locations SD-6, SD-15, SD-5, and SD-11. Sampling locations are shown in
Figure 3-25 and 3-26. Arsenic was found at two locations south of the main
entrance road at concentrations of 47.4 to 128 mg/kg.
Arsenic was also found at concentrations from 11 to 525 mg/kg in sediment
samples from the Phase I and II RI field investigation. The highest
concentrations (>100 mg/kg) were found at locations in the Clinton-Kalamazoo
Canal, and south and southeast of the Oil Seep Area. Chromium was also
found at high concentrations in two sediment samples from the canal (98.8 to
418 mg/kg). Arsenic was also found at concentrations ranging from 0.64 to
3.4 mg/kg in the five sediment samples from the Clinton River (see Interim RI).
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Contaminants from the migration of separate phase liquids and contaminated
groundwater from the original Phase I Landfill area are the source of
3-50
-------
Table 3-9
INORGANIC BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT
G&H LANDFILL
(mg/kg)
GH-MISD12-01 GH-MISD13-01
Maximum Minimum Average
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
910
6.2
1.6
4.5
0.26
1
32600
4.3
1
10.6
2480
3.5
7170
61.5
0.13
5.3
153
0.52
1
383
0.52
3.9
13.1
J
U
J
U
U
U
J
U
UJ
J
J
J
U
J
U
UJ
U
U
U
J
U
799
6.3
1.7
4.9
0.26
1
28600
2.4
1
9
2200
1.7
6920
84.7
0.13
3.6
161
0.52
1
388
0.52
3.9
11.3
J
U
J
J
U
U
J
J
U
UJ
U
U
J
U
J
U
UJ
U
U
U
J
U
910
ND
1.7
4.9
ND
ND
32600
4.3
ND
ND
2480
3.5
7170
84.7
ND
5.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.9
ND
799
ND
1.6
ND
ND
ND
28600
2.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
6920
61.5
ND
3.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.9
ND
854.5
ND
1.65
3.58 *
ND
ND
30600
3.35
ND
ND
1790 *
2.18 *
7045
73.1
ND
4.45
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.9
ND
NOTES:
Background sample data are from the Supplemental Investigation Report prepared by
Warzyn Engineering, Inc. for MDNR.
J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity because
quality control criteria were not meet.
U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected.
UJ - Sample was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numeric value
is an estimated quantity because quality control criteria were not met.
ND - Not detected.
* - The average is calculated using one-half the detection limit for the
undetected value.
-------
Table 3-10
SAMPLES EXCEEDING INORGANIC
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT
G&H LANDFILL
No. Exceeding (a,b)
Background/ Samples Exceeding
Total No. Background
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
2/11
0/11
2/11
5/11
5/11
3/11
0/11
2/11
6/6
11/11
1/11
7/11
0/11
1/11
5/11
1/11
10/10
1/11
0/11
5/11
0/11
1/11
11/11
SD-06,15
SD-05,06
SD-05.06.10,11.15
SD-06.11,13,15.16
SD-11,12,15
SD-06.15
SD-05,06,11,12,13,15
SD-05,06,09-17
SD-06
SD-05,06,11-15
SD-06
SD-05.06,11,12,15
SD-06
SD-05,06,09-16
SD-13
SD-05,06,09,10.14
SD-06
SD-05.06.09-17
Range of
Sample Concentration (b)
for all Samples (mg/kg)
1910 -
ND
2.1 -
17.2
ND
ND
5700
6
7.4
11
5320
6.2
2840
51.2
0.13
5.6
273
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.7
18.8
45100
128
543
2
3.2
99300
93.5
33.8
111
86400
536
37400
1100
0.49
83.9
5400
1.9
2200
100
392
NOTES:
Background concentrations are compared to samples taken during the Phase III Rl (8-89)
(a) - The number of samples exceeding background concentrations by an
order of magnitude higher than the maximum background concentration.
(b) - Samples qualified as blank contamination were not considered
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
contamination of sediment and surface water in the Oil Seep Area and surface
runoff for contamination south and southwest of the Oil Seep Area. BETX and
PNA compounds, particularly the more soluble PNAs, naphthalene and
2-methylnapthalene, were detected in surface water upgradient of the Oil Seep
Area (Figures 3-24 and 3-26). Sediment in the Oil Seep Area and downgradient
of the Oil Seep Area was contaminated primarily with the less soluble PNA
compounds. Surface water from the same area had primarily the most soluble
PNAs and with PCBs. The separate phase liquid samples from the Oil Seep
Area contained high concentrations of both the more soluble and less soluble
PNAs.
Concentrations of PNAs in the ditches along Ryan Road do not follow a general
pattern of decrease in concentration with distance from the Oil Seep Area.
Surface water runoff from the Oil Seep Area appears to move to ponds to the
southeast, then to the wetland area south of the main site entrance road, and on
to the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. In the past, before interim remedial measures
were initiated, surface water runoff from the Oil Seep Area moved along the
south edge of the railroad tracks to the ditches along Ryan Road and then to
the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. Previous surface water runoff sediment transfer
from the Oil Seep Area may have been one of the sources of PNA-
contaminated sediments in the ditch. In addition, the source of the PNAs in the
ditches may also be attributable to urban runoff. There is no way to definitely
determine the concentration of PNAs in the ditches from each source. Site
contamination and other sources may contribute.
3-51
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Pesticides are not thought to be attributable to site activities and there is no
pattern of detection which would appear to be related to the source areas at the
site.
AMBIENT AIR AND LANDFILL GAS
Sampling methods used to collect ambient air and landfill gas samples at the
G&H Landfill site are discussed in detail in Appendix A, Technical
Memorandum No. 8. The complete set of validated results from the sampling
events is presented in Technical Memorandum No. 10.
The following types of sampling events were performed:
• Two 5-day VOC ambient air sampling events performed to assess
ambient air quality on and around the site and to evaluate the
impact on the ambient air quality from the aerator in the Oil Seep
Area and excavation of landfill contents
• A 2-day polyurethane foam (PUF) ambient air sampling event
pesticides, PCBs, and SVOCs, using EPA Reference Method
TO-10 to achieve the same objectives as the ambient air VOC
sampling
• Four rounds of gas probe sampling for selected VOCs to
investigate the concentration and migration patterns of the landfill
gas
3-52
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Data interpretations for risk objectives are presented in Chapter 5.
Ambient Air VOC Sampling Results
The ambient air VOC samples were collected during two sampling events using
EPA Reference Methods TO-1 and TO-2. The first 5-day sampling event was
conducted during test pit excavation to assess potential releases during
excavation activities. The second 5-day event occurred during a period of no
site activity to assess ambient air quality on and around the site.
After validating the ambient air VOC data, average concentrations were
determined for each contaminant at each location sampled. The ambient air
VOC locations sampled are upwind, downwind of the Oil Seep Area and test
pit, at the downwind fenceline, and at the nearest downwind residence. Average
contaminant concentrations were calculated separately for each sampling method
and each sampling event. Detected compounds attributed to blank
contamination were not used in the calculation of the average concentrations.
The calculated averages along with the maximum, minimum, standard deviation
and number of times the compound was detected are presented in Tables 3-11
to 3-14. Emissions from the excavation of test pits can vary significantly from
one area of the landfill to the next. Because averages were calculated from only
five samples, the data are too inconclusive to make specific assumptions about
overall contaminant concentrations.
In general, contaminant concentrations were higher for the downwind test pit
samples during the first sampling event. When comparing the results from each
sampling event, contaminant concentrations for the downwind fenceline and
3-53
-------
Table 3-11
AMBIENT AIR VOC SAMPLING EVENT 1
CALCULATED AVERAGE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM TENAX TUBES
Sample:
SAS Number:
Date Sampled:
(ug/m3)
1,1.1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Acetate
Xylene (total)
GH-AA-T-UW-(01 -05)
Avg Max Min Count
25.5 178.8 0.0 1
3.5 18.6 0.0 2
0.4 3.1 0.0 1
2.2 5.9 0.0 5
2.1 7.5 0.0 5
0.3 0.7 0.0 4
0.1 0.4 0.0 2
0.9 3.1 0.0 4
123.7 315.0 11.6 7
1.0 3.1 0.0 5
9.1 21.6 0.0 6
19.5 31.7 0.0 6
0.1 0.4 0.0 1
4.2 12.1 0.0 5
GH-AA-T-TP-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
0.2 0.9 0.0 2
10.9 55.6 0.6 6
11.2 67.0 0.0 1
3.8 22.6 0.0 1
2.3 13.9 0.0 1
8.0 12.3 2.7 6
0.8 2.0 0.0 4
0.6 3.0 0.0 2
0.6 3.7 0.0 1
130.2 323.7 1.8 6
45.7 89.0 23.0 6
7.0 36.9 0.0 3
71.3 174.4 12.3 6
12.6 24.1 7.0 6
368.5 867.1 7.0 6
GH-AA-T-SA-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
1.5 5.9 0.0 4
0.4 1.0 0.0 4
0.3 0.4 0.0 5
0.1 0.4 0.0 2
0.2 1.0 0.0 1
3.0 8.4 0.0 4
48.1 71.6 31.9 6
0.6 2.8 0.0 2
9.5 22.3 0.0 5
5.6 10.5 2.1 6
14.9 40.0 0.0 4
GH-AA-T-DF-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
2.3 5.8 0.0 5
0.5 2.2 0.0 3
0.2 0.4 0.0 4
0.1 0.3 0.0 3
0.3 1.0 0.0 2
0.4 1.8 0.0 3
54.9 130.0 22.8 7
0.9 2.7 0.0 5
8.6 14.6 3.6 7
8.8 18.0 3.0 7
2.6 8.8 0.0 4
GH-AA-T-DR-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
1.1 7.8 0.0 1
0.1 0.8 0.0 1
2.9 7.8 0.3 7
1.9 4.4 0.0 6
0.4 0.8 0.0 6
0.1 0.4 0.0 3
0.9 3.4 0.0 3
113.9 312.1 23.0 7
1.0 3.8 0.0 5
10.6 26.1 5.2 7
15.4 33.3 2.5 7
4.4 18.3 0.0 3
NOTES: Sample Location Codes
UW= Upwind
SA = Seep Area
TP= Test Pit
DF = Downwind Fenceline
DR = Downwind Residence
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-12
AMBIENT AIR VOC SAMPLING EVENT 2
CALCULATED AVERAGE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM TENAX TUBES
Sample:
SAS Number:
Date Sampled:
(ug/m3)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)
GH-AA-T-UW-{06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
1.4
1.4
0.4
0.6
2.5
0.7
44.0
1.1
8.6
0.3
2.9
4.8
4.1
1.5
1.4
15.2
2.3
220.8
4.8
28.2
1.0
11.0
0.0 4
0.0 4
0.0 2
0.0 5
0.0 1
0.0 3
0.0 3
0.0 4
0.0 3
0.0 4
0.0 2
GH-AA-T-SA-(06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
1.4
1.5
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.0
0.02
3.2
4.1
45.1
2.0
1.2
16.9
0.3
0.3
0.1
24.9
4.5
3.9
1.2
1.9
1.2
0.1
0.1
16.4
11.0
205.9
11.9
4.8
36.2
1.3
1.8
0.5
67.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
5
1
4
6
1
1
2
5
3
1
5
4
3
1
1
5
GH-AA-T-TP-(06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
1.1
0.1
37.6
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.6
0.4
10.5
0.1
1.2
4.9
0.2
1.8
2.2
0.5
225.7
3.5
4.3
1.5
3.4
9.5
1.7
31.5
0.4
2.5
9.9
0.7
9.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
1
1
4
4
6
1
1
3
2
1
6
4
3
2
NOTES: Sample Location Codes
UW = Upwind
SA = Seep Area
TP = Test Pit
DF = Downwind Fenceline
DR = Downwind Residence
• = Average Downwind Residence (DR) concentration calculated without the addition
of the back half of sample DR-10 which is suspected to be a contaminated tube.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-12
AMBIENT AIR VOC SAMPLING EVENT 2
CALCULATED AVERAGE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM TENAX TUBES
Sample:
SAS Number:
Date Sampled:
(ug/m3)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1.2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)
GH-AA-T-DF-(06-1 0)
Avg Max Min Count
1.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.7
4.1
0.9
7.4
0.8
6.7
0.4
4.4
2.0
0.5
2.6
0.5
0.9
24.4
2.0
30.9
2.3
13.4
1.0
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
2
2
6
1
5
2
5
4
3
4
GH-AA-T-DR-{06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
0.3 1.6
2.0 4.4
0.7 3.7
0.1 0.8
0.7 3.9
0.05 0.3
2.5 5.1
0.02 0.1
0.4 2.0
3.1 15.1
12.0 72.0
44.0 264.0
82.8 480.0
0.03 0.2
0.03 0.2
0.7 2.6
56.5 320.0
2.2 8.8
4.8 15.1
4.7 27.5
5.2 13.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
6
2
1
1
1
5
1
3
6
1
2
3
1
1
3
2
5
3
3
4
GH-AA-T-DR-(06-10*)
Std
Avg Max Min Count
1.2
0.1
2.3
0.4
0.7
0.0
2.8
0.6
3.2
0.9
4.8
0.2
4.7
2.0
0.4
3.9
2.0
1.0
0.1
10.4
1.9
19.2
1.7
15.1
0.6
10.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
1
5
3
6
1
2
3
1
5
3
3
4
NOTES: Sample Location Codes
UW = Upwind
SA = Seep Area
TP = Test Pit
DF = Downwind Fenceline
DR = Downwind Residence
' = Average Downwind Residence (DR) concentration calculated without the addition
of the back half of sample DR-10 which is suspected to be a contaminated tube.
-------
Table 3-13
AMBIENT AIR VOC SAMPLING EVENT 1
CALCULATED AVERAGE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR CMS TUBES
Sample:
SAS Number:
Date Sampled:
(ug/m3)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1.1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)
GH-AA-C-UW-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
2.1 12.8 0.0 1
0.3 1.6 0.0 2
8.6 51.8 0.0 1
2.0 6.5 0.0 4
1.6 9.4 0.0 1
23.7 142.1 0.0 1
3.8 22.8 0.0 1
2.1 12.7 0.0 1
6.1 36.5 0.0 1
8.0 26.4 0.0 3
3.6 21.3 0.0 1
GH-AA-C-TP-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
0.5 1.9 0.0 2
7.1 39.6 0.0 2
7.8 46.7 0.0 1
0.3 1.6 0.0 1
2.3 11.1 0.0 2
83.7 279.6 0.0 5
50.0 300.0 0.0 1
45.8 251.2 0.0 3
7.7 20.2 0.0 4
1.0 5.1 0.0 2
254.5 746.0 0.0 5
GH-AA-C-SA-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
1.4 8.6 0.0 1
0.6 2.1 0.0 2
0.1 0.7 0.0 1
0.7 4.1 0.0 1
1.3 3.0 0.0 3
13.7 44.2 0.0 4
GH-AA-C-DF-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
32.4 194.7 0.0 1
16.5 52.0 0.0 2
0.7 2.2 0.0 2
61.9 371.3 0.0 1
2.0 10.6 0.0 2
27.9 167.6 0.0 1
2.5 8.4 0.0 2
7.2 34.6 0.0 2
GH-AA-C-DR-(01-05)
Avg Max Min Count
0.8 3.6 0.0 2
0.3 1.5 0.0 1
0.9 3.1 0.0 2
0.3 2.0 0.0 1
3.6 15.0 0.0 4
0.6 3.6 0.0 1
NOTES: Sample Location Codes
UW= Upwind
SA = Seep Area
TP= Test Pit
DF = Downwind Fenceline
DR = Downwind Residence
-------
Table 3-14
AMBIENT AIR VOC SAMPLING EVENT 2
CALCULATED AVERAGE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM CMS TUBES
Sample:
SAS Number:
Date Sampled:
(ug/m3)
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)
GH-AA-C-UW-(06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
0.4 1.4 0.0 4
4.0 24.1 0.0 1
0.2 1.0 0.0 2
7.5 29.9 0.0 2
0.7 1.8 0.0 4
8.8 52.9 0.0 1
0.3 1.2 0.0 3
17.7 82.5 0.0 3
0.0 0.3 0.0 1
0.3 1.0 0.0 2
GH-AA-C-SA-(06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
1.0 4.6 0.0 5
19.0 103.2 0.0 4
0.6 3.8 0.0 1
0.5 1.5 0.0 5
0.1 0.5 0.0 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 1
4.7 20.4 0.0 2
0.3 0.9 0.0 2
57.8 347.0 0.0 1
0.1 0.6 0.0 1
17.6 75.6 0.0 4
0.03 0.2 0.0 1
GH-AA-C-TP-(06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
0.05 0.3 0.0 1
0.5 1.1 0.0 4
0.3 1.6 0.0 1
0.1 0.4 0.0 1
1.8 6.3 0.0 3
0.1 0.3 0.0 4
0.2 1.3 0.0 1
0.2 1.0 0.0 1
0.1 0.4 0.0 1
8.2 35.3 0.0 2
1.6 6.4 0.0 3
3.4 20.2 0.0 1
0.1 0.4 0.0 1
4.1 12.8 0.0 2
0.1 0.2 0.0 3
2.5 15.1 0.0 1
GH-AA-C-DF-(06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
0.7 4.3 0.0 1
0.3 0.7 0.0 4
1.3 7.6 0.0 1
0.2 0.3 0.0 5
1.4 8.1 0.0 2
0.0 0.1 0.0 1
41.4 195.6 0.0 3
0.7 1.3 0.0 4
2.7 11.6 0.0 2
0.4 1.2 0.0 3
6.0 27.9 0.0 2
0.2 0.4 0.0 3
0.2 0.6 0.0 3
GH-AA-C-DR-(06-10)
Avg Max Min Count
6.2 37.2 0.0 1
0.3 0.6 0.0 4
5.9 20.5 0.0 4
0.1 0.3 0.0 3
0.1 0.5 0.0 1
143.7 541.7 0.0 4
1.9 7.9 0.0 5
30.6 183.3 0.0 1
6.7 31.6 0.0 2
0.3 0.8 0.0 3
15.7 68.3 0.0 4
0.2 0.5 0.0 3
1.0 6.0 0.0 1
NOTES: Sample Location Codes
UW = Upwind
SA = Seep Area
TP = Test Pit
DF = Downwind Fenceline
DR = Downwind Residence
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
downwind residence samples, are not significantly different enough to calculate
the effect test pit excavation had on ambient air quality. Differences in
contaminant concentration levels between upwind and downwind fenceline or
downwind residence samples during either sampling event do not show a wide
enough variance to statistically determine the landfill's effect on ambient air
quality.
Results suggested that several compounds seem to be better indicators of landfill
emissions. Results from the first sampling event show that the average
concentration of xylene and ethylbenzene from the downwind test pit samples is
one order of magnitude higher than xylene and ethylbenzene levels from any
other sample location.
Blank contamination is prevalent in results from both sampling methods, but
more so in the TO-2 samples. Because of the large number of compounds
affected by the blank contamination, data results are less reliable.
Ambient Air PUF Sampling Results
No pesticides, PCBs, or SVOCs were detected in any of the PUF ambient air
samples collected during the 2-day sampling event. Results suggest that during
the 2-day PUF sampling event neither the landfill itself nor the Oil Seep Area
had an effect on the concentration of pesticides, PCBs, or SVOCs in the
ambient air.
3-54
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Gas Probe Sample Results
Results for the gas probe sampling events are not available at the time this
report was written.
SUMMARY
The following summarizes the nature and extent of contamination at the G&H
Landfill site:
• Four stratigraphic units have been identified—the upper sand,
lacustrine, till, and lower sand units.
• The upper unconfined aquifer flows south-southwesterly except at
the western edge of the site where it flows west toward the Clinton
River.
• The Phase I Landfill is the most contaminated source area at the
site.
• Refuse and underlying soils are saturated with oil at the Codisposal
Area and the two former oil ponds under the Phase I Landfill.
• BETX, chlorinated VOCs, PNAs, PCBs and inorganic analytes are
the most common contaminants found at the site.
3-55
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Surface soils on the Phase I Landfill are contaminated with PCBs
near Oil Pond No. 2, by the site entrance, and near the center of
the landfill.
Groundwater contaminant plumes are migrating to the south from
the Phase I Landfill toward the wetland area.
Oil from the Phase I Landfill extends south where it seeps out to
the surface at the Oil Seep Area and becomes a source of surface
water contamination to the wetlands south and southeast of the Oil
Seep Area.
BETX contamination was detected in the subsurface soils offsite to
the east in the commercial area and appear to be site related.
Sediment contamination is found along the westerly edge of the
site near the Clinton River caused by leachate seeps at the toe of
the Phase III Landfill.
GLT959/022.50
3-56
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Chapter 4
FATE AND TRANSPORT
INTRODUCTION
The release of hazardous substances from the source areas at the G&H Landfill
and their subsequent transfer and transport in the environment is the subject of
this chapter. Specifically, this chapter describes:
• Potential migration pathways
. • Migration pathways specific to the G&H Landfill
• Migration properties of hazardous substances of concern
• Migration and fate of the contaminants of concern at the site.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
The Phase I Landfill is considered the primary source of hazardous substances
contamination based on historical records and the findings of the Phase I, II,
and III RIs. Oily wastes and soil have been observed throughout most of the
Phase I Landfill. The predominant contaminant groups in the source areas are
BETX, chlorinated VOCs, PNAs, PCBs, and inorganic chemicals.
Surface soils in the landfill areas (mainly the Phase I Landfill) were found to
have PNA and PCB contamination. Contamination in subsurface soils consists
primarily of BETXs, although PNAs and PCBs were found in the vicinity of the
Oil Seep Area. PNAs and PCBs were also found in the soil at the base of the
of the Phase III Landfill.
4-1
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Chlorinated VOCS and BETXs were the most widespread of the contaminants
detected in the groundwater. They were found primarily at the Phase I Landfill
and between the landfill and the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. BETXs were also
detected in the groundwater at the Phase II and III Landfills. PNAs were
detected in the vicinity of the Oil Seep Area and at the Phase I and III
Landfills.
Inorganic chemicals above the maximum probable background concentrations
were detected in groundwater samples from the landfill area and from
downgradient areas. Concentrations of inorganic chemicals do not form a
distinct pattern identifiable as a plume. Inorganic concentration in groundwater
may differ by an order of magnitude in monitoring wells less than 200 feet
apart.
About half of the inorganic concentrations in soils from the source areas were
about an order of magnitude greater than in background soils. The highest
concentrations of inorganic and organic contaminants occur within the same
areas of the Phase I Landfill.
MIGRATION POTENTIAL OF REPRESENTATIVE CHEMICALS
REPRESENTATIVE CHEMICALS
Specific chemicals were chosen to represent the large range of contaminants of
concern that have been identified at the site. Table 4-1 lists the chemicals
evaluated in this chapter. They were selected on the basis of concentration,
frequency of occurrence, migration potential, toxicity, and carcinogenic potential
of the contaminant. The chemicals listed in the table are grouped according to
type of compound.
4-2
-------
Table 4-1
REPRESENTATIVE COMPOUNDS
CHLORINATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
BETXs
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS (PNAs)
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
PCBs
PCBs (total)
PHTHALATES
Dibutyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
NOTE:
The above list of chemicals was selected from compounds of concern based on
concentration, frequency of occurrence, migration potential, toxocity, and
carcinogenic potential.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The behavior of chemicals at the G&H Landfill was determined by the physical
and chemical interaction of the chemicals with the environment. Mobility and
persistence were of primary importance in the assessment of contaminants at the
site. Mobility is the potential for a chemical to migrate away from the site.
Persistence is related to how long a chemical will remain hi the environment.
Factors that affect chemical behavior include pH, soil moisture, oxidation-
reduction potential, water chemistry, and the macro- and micro-organisms
present.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Various basic physical and chemical properties affect the transport of organic
compounds in the environment. Six important ones are molecular weight,
solubility in water, vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, density, and the organic
carbon partitioning coefficient (K^). Table 4-2 lists these properties for
representative chemicals found at the site. Other properties not listed that may
affect migration of chemicals include viscosity and temperature.
The molecular weight of a pure compound influences other physical
characteristics of a compound. For example, VOCs with higher molecular
weights have less tendency to volatilize than those with lower molecular weights.
Water solubility is the maximum concentration of a compound that can dissolve
in water at a specific pH and temperature. Highly soluble compounds can be
easily leached from soils and tend to be more mobile in groundwater.
Density and solubility of liquid compounds are among the primary physical
properties responsible for the transport of separate phase liquids in water. The
density of a relatively insoluble compound will determine whether it will sink or
float in the saturated zone.
4-3
-------
Table 4-2
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF SELECTED REPRESENTATIVE CHEMICALS
Chemical
CHLORINATED VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dichloroethene(1)
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
BEXTs
Benzene
Xylene (mixed)
Ethylbenzene
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS (PNAs)
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Molecular
Weight
(g/mole)
MPOUNDS
63 (a)
97 (a)
131 (a)
166 (a)
78 (a)
106 (a)
106 (a)
)S(PNAs)
128 (c)
252 (a)
228 (a)
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
2.7E+03 (a)
2.7E+00 (a)
5.8E+01 (a)
1.8E+01 (a)
9.5E+01 (a)
1.0E+01 (a)
7.0E+00 (a)
8.7E-02 (c)
5.6E-09 (a)
2.2E-08 (a)
Solubility
in water
2.7E+03 (a)
4.9E+02 (a)
1.1E+03 (a)
1.5E+02 (a)
1.8E+03 (a)
2.0E+02 (a)
1.5E+02 (a)
3.4E+01 (c)
1.2E-03 (a)
5.7E-03 (a)
Henry's Law
Koc (2) Constant
(ml/g) (atm-m3/mole)
57 (a)
54 (a)
126 (a)
364 (a)
83 (a)
240 (a)
1100 (a)
940 (d)
5500000 (a)
1380000 (a)
8.2E-02 (a)
7.1E-03 (a)
9.1E-03 (a)
2.6E-02 (a)
5.6E-03 (a)
7.0E-03 (a)
6.4E-03 (a)
2.4E-04
1.5E-06 (a)
1.2E-06 (a)
Density
(alec)
0.91 (b)
1.27 (b)
1.46 (b)
1.63 (b)
0.88 (b)
0.87 (b)
0.87 (b)
1.15 (c)
1-3 (c)
1-3 (c)
PCBs (1)
PCBs (mixture)
PHTHALATES
Dibutyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
328 (a)
278 (a)
222 (a)
7.7E-05 (a)
1.0E-05 (a)
3.5E-03 (a)
3.1E-02 (a)
1.3E+01 (a)
9.0E+02 (a)
530000 (a)
170000 (a)
142 (a)
1.1E-03 (a)
2.8E-07 (a)
1.1E-06 (a)
1.05
1.12
NOTES:
(1) Values for 1,2-dichloroethene are the average of values for cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.
(2) Koc - Organic carbon partitioning coefficient.
Sources: (a) Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual EPA, 1985
(b) Verschueren, Karel, 1983; Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals
(c) Chemical, Physical, and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at Hazardous Waste Sites EPA, 1985
(d) Determining Soil Response Action Levels Based on Potential Contaminant
Migration to Groundwater: A Compendium of Examples, EPA, 1989
(b)
(b)
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Vapor pressure is a relative measure of volatility of a compound in its pure
state. A high vapor pressure is indicative that a compound will readily volatilize
from the liquid form.
Henry's law constant is an expression of the distribution of a chemical between
air and water at equilibrium. It is usually defined as the ratio of the partial
pressure of the compound in air, measured in atmospheres, to the mole fraction
of the compound in a water solution. A high Henry's law constant indicates a
higher tendency for a compound to volatilize from water.
The organic carbon partitioning coefficient K^ indicates the tendency for a
chemical be adsorbed by the soil. For groundwater, low K^ values indicate
faster leaching from the source areas and limited retardation of migration
potential of the solute through the soil matrix.
Inorganic chemicals do not behave like organic compounds and they are not
included in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Their behavior is more complex, depending on
numerous factors such as pH, concentration, oxidation-reduction potential, and
the concentration of other ions.
POTENTIAL MIGRATION PATHWAYS
SOURCE AREAS
The source areas are generally areas where wastes have been disposed of, such
as landfills or sludge lagoons, and are the source of contaminants that may
migrate to other areas. With time, other areas where contaminants have
migrated may become source areas. For example, pond sediments may become
4-4
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
the source area for groundwater contamination if contaminants from the original
source area migrate to the pond.
RELEASE AND TRANSPORT MECHANISMS
Potential mechanisms for contaminant release and migration from the source
areas are:
• Release of contaminants to the atmosphere by volatilization
• Erosion and transport of contaminated dust by wind
• Leaching of contaminants into groundwater and subsequent
transport to groundwater discharge areas such as rivers, lakes,
seeps, or wells
• Surface runoff of contaminants by erosion, dissolving, or separate
phase liquid release to ditches or other low areas
Releases to the Air
Contaminants in the surface soil could be released from the site by erosion,
resulting in airborne dust, or by volatilization. Erosion could be enhanced by
site activities, such as excavation. Contaminants that tend to be bound to the
soil (i.e., that have high K^ or low solubility) could be released to the air as
dust. This would include PNAs, PCBs and inorganic chemicals.
VOCs (including chlorinated VOCs and BETX compounds) are characterized by
relatively high vapor pressures, Henry's law constants and solubility in water, and
low organic carbon partition coefficients. These chemicals could be released
through volatilization through the pore spaces in the soil or volatilization directly
4-5
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
to the atmosphere if site soils are excavated. The potential for semivolatile
compounds (such as PNAs) to be released to the atmosphere is much more
limited.
Releases to Groundwater
Contaminants can be transported offsite by leaching from the soil into the
groundwater. Precipitation percolating through the unsaturated soil can cause
the soil contaminants to dissolve and be transported into the groundwater in a
process called "leaching."
Mechanisms that influence the migration of contaminant dissolved in
groundwater include:
• Advection—the process by which solutes are transported by the
bulk motion of flowing groundwater
• Dispersion—the spreading of solutes from the path they would be
expected to follow according to advection hydraulics, resulting from
spatial variation in aquifer permeability, fluid mixing, and molecular
diffusion
• Sorption—the retention of dissolved chemicals on the soil matrix
due to partitioning between the groundwater and surfaces of the
aquifer matrix
• Degradation—the biological decomposition or chemical alteration
of dissolved contamination
Advection is the primary transport mechanism for dissolved contamination. As
groundwater passes through the wastes or as precipitation percolates through the
4-6
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
wastes, contaminants are dissolved and carried away from the source area by the
groundwater. The migration of contaminants is slowed as adsorption and
desorption within the aquifer matrix occurs.
VOCs in general have a relatively high solubility in water, high vapor pressure,
low molecular weight, and low K^. These characteristics result in their relatively
high mobility and low persistence in the environment. These compounds are
expected to leach easily from the contaminated soils and move with the
groundwater. PNAs and other semivolatile compounds have a relatively high
molecular weight, low vapor pressure, low Henry's Law constant, low solubility,
and high K^. These compounds have a high affinity for sorption to most soils
and tend to leach slowly. Once in the groundwater, they migrate at a slower
rate than the groundwater.
The rate at which a contaminant moves through the groundwater depends on
several factors, including groundwater velocity, physical characteristics of the
contaminant, and physical characteristics of the soil. The groundwater velocity is
determined by the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer, the horizontal gradient
of the piezometric surface, and the effective porosity of the aquifer material.
The physical property of the contaminant used in determining the migration rate
is the organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K^), which is related to the
solubility of the compound. Physical properties of the soil used in contaminant
velocities are bulk density, effective porosity, and organic carbon content.
Groundwater Discharge
Contaminated groundwater can discharge to the surface by several means. It
can discharge to such water bodies as streams and ponds, and it can discharge
to the surface as seeps or springs. Pumping such as from residential or
industrial wells is another form of groundwater discharge. Once contaminated
4-7
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
groundwater has been discharged to the land surface, contaminants are subject
to biodegradation, oxidation, volatilization, photolysis, or other mechanisms.
Movement of Separate Phase Liquids
Not all contamination moves through the aquifer matrix as a solute in
groundwater. The portion of the liquid oils and solvents not dissolved in the
groundwater is called "separate phase liquids." Separate phase liquids may
migrate in somewhat different directions than the groundwater. Because of the
physical characteristics of the separate phase liquid, such as viscosity, the
preferential path for its movement may be through the coarser sands and
gravels. The movement of the oily material is not necessarily as a continuous
slug. It may move as microemulsions, oil microdroplets, or oil micelles within
the groundwater (Jenkins 1986).
Surface Runoff
Surface runoff is concerned with the erosion of soils, usually due to rain events,
and the subsequent movement of these soils to ditches, ponds or other drainage
features. Runoff may also be to any topographically low area, such as an
adjacent yard. Contaminated soil can be carried by runoff and be redeposited in
previously unaffected areas. Contaminants can be dissolved in the runoff water
and be additionally transported by this medium.
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION AT THE SITE
Contaminants are potentially migrating from the site by several pathways:
• Volatilization of VOCs to the atmosphere from the source areas,
primarily the Phase I Landfill and Oil Seep Area
4-8
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
• Surface erosion resulting in contaminated airborne dust
• Movement of contaminated groundwater to groundwater discharge
areas including the Oil Seep Area, wetlands between the landfills
and the Clinton River, the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal, and possibly
the Clinton River
• Surface runoff into ditches along the old railroad grade and
potentially along ditches on the west side of Ryan Road
SOURCE AREAS
The source areas of the site consist of the Phase I, II, and III Landfills and the
Oil Seep Area. Although wastes were not initially disposed of in the Oil Seep
Area, sufficient volumes of contaminants have migrated there so that it acts as a
source area.
The Phase I Landfill is the primary source area of contamination related to
waste oil and solvents. Waste oils and other industrial wastes are mixed with
soil and municipal wastes and are situated above and below the water table.
Leachate samples from the base of the Phase III Landfill suggest that industrial
wastes may also be present there. All three landfills may be sources of
inorganic contamination.
The Oil Seep Area is an area immediately south of the Phase I Landfill where
oily wastes have seeped out of the ground into a series of old gravel pits, now
filled with water. Although remedial actions have taken place at the Oil Seep
Area, contaminated sediments remain that may act as a source of surface water
and groundwater contamination. Contaminated sediments may be migrating
away from the Oil Seep Area.
4-9
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
RELEASES TO THE ATMOSPHERE
The VOCs in the source areas, particularly the Phase I Landfill, can potentially
volatilize and escape to the atmosphere. Ambient air sampling has not
conclusively established whether VOCs are being released from the site, but the
soil cover over the landfills probably minimizes atmospheric releases. Elevated
levels of VOCs have been measured in air samples downwind of the Oil Seep
Area, where contaminants are present in the surface water and sediments.
Potential for similar releases exists at the seeps along the side of the Phase III
Landfill.
Surface soil sampling has detected PCB, pesticide, and dioxin contamination both
onsite and offsite, including background areas. Wind could pick up and carry
contaminated dust to other areas. The potential for release of VOCs and
contaminated dust to the atmosphere is greater when the ground is disturbed.
Air monitoring during the excavation of test pits detected increased levels of
VOCs downwind of the excavation.
MOVEMENT OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is becoming contaminated as it passes beneath the site.
Precipitation is leaching contaminants into the groundwater from the refuse.
Portions of the Phase I Landfill are beneath the water table in some areas (see
Figure 3-12).
The direction of contaminant migration in the groundwater is generally the same
as that of the groundwater. Movement is primarily horizontal in the upper
aquifer and generally southward across the site except at the western portion of
the site, where movement is more westward. Downward movement of
contaminants is limited by the till, which is assumed to be continuous across the
site and acts as a confining layer between the upper and lower aquifers.
4-10
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Organic contamination is moving with the groundwater but is retarded relative to
the groundwater velocity. Inorganic contamination is assumed to be moving at
the same rate as the groundwater.
Two pathways have been used in the following analysis of contaminant
movement (Figure 4-1). Path 1 starts near monitoring well RD8XX in the area
of some of the highest source contamination, and ends near monitoring well
GH-08A between the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal and the Clinton River. Path 2
originates near Well RD18, in a source area in the west end of the site, and
ends at the Clinton River. A portion of Path 2 is through Phase III Landfill.
The hydraulic conductivity and other pertinent physical properties of the landfill
are assumed to be the same as the upper aquifer.
The estimated groundwater velocity along Path 1 is 44 feet per year. This was
calculated using a hydraulic gradient of 0.0071, a sitewide average hydraulic
conductivity of 1.8 x 10"3 cm/s, and an effective porosity of 0.3. Using a gradient
of 0.032 along Path 2, the estimated groundwater velocity for that path is
200 feet per year. These velocities are within the 30 to 300 feet per year range
of groundwater velocities developed in Chapter 3.
The estimated velocity of dissolved contaminant migration is shown in Table 4-3.
The contaminant velocities are based on a groundwater velocity of 44 feet per
year along Path 1 and 2,000 feet per year along Path 2. The most rapidly
migrating contaminants are the VOCs, which are moving at about 15 to
75 percent of the groundwater velocity. Vinyl chloride, 1,2-dichloroethene, and
benzene are among the faster moving VOCs, migrating at about 30 feet per year
along Path 1. Heavier molecular weight VOCs, such as tetrachloroethane and
ethylbenzene, are migrating at less than 15 feet per year. PNAs are estimated
to migrate at less than 0.01 foot per year. Naphthalene is one of the most
mobile PNAs and is estimated to move at about 6 feet per year. Along Path 2,
4-11
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
VOCs are estimated to be migrating between about 25 and 150 feet per year.
Most PNAs are moving less than 0.03 foot per year.
Estimated contaminant velocities through the till are listed in Table 4-4. They
are based on the downward groundwater velocity of 0.25 foot/year developed in
Chapter 3. The VOCs migrate at a rate between 15 and 50 percent that of the
groundwater. The most mobile contaminant (VOCs) are estimated to be moving
at about 0.12 foot per year.
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE
Potentially contaminated groundwater may be discharging to the surface at the
following locations around the site:
• The Oil Seep Area
• The gravel pit ponds and wetlands between the landfills and the
Clinton River
• The Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal
• The pond north of the Phase III Landfill
• The Clinton River
There is no direct evidence that contaminated groundwater is discharging to the
Clinton River. As described in Chapter 3, the upper aquifer terminates before
it reaches the Clinton River, and the groundwater discharges as surface seeps
before it can reach the river. Potential surface seeps have been covered by the
Phase III Landfill, providing a possible groundwater route to the Clinton River.
Leachate samples along the west side of the Phase III Landfill have shown
4-12
-------
8SS3DFHT5AI. AREA
*'***
FiSH POND
GH27A
*:'~\9 693.5 GH17A
691.2
RD18
691.5
\ i v OIL POND
NO. 2
AUTOMOBILE
% ^ DiSPGSAL
;i YARD
GH28A
691.6
RD08XX '•'
687.1
CG-OISPOSAS.
ARSA
GH38A
'687.7
•"A
PHASE fi LANDRLL
,^ ^686.3
I05
GH06A 686.9
GH32A
684.3 *
GH40A
«683.o
684.2 V"x
, GH01A
' '682.0,
' GH44A
t ,679.9
679.4 «
22 - MILE ROAD ••"="
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
»** LANDFILL BOUNDARY
•-x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM. OR RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE (TRACKS
REMOVED)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
(MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM
AT MONITORING WELL)
SELECTED MIGRATION
PATHWAYS
FIGURE 4-1
SELECTED GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINANT
MIGRATION PATHS
(July 24,189 Potentiometric Surface)
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
Table 4-3
ESTIMATED CONTAMINANT VELOCITIES
ALONG SELECTED PATHS
Assumed bulk density: 1.9 gm/cc
Assumed Porosity: 0.3
Assumed Organic Carbon Fraction: 0.001
Path 1 - Groundwater Velocity: 44 feet/year
Path 2 - Groundwater Velocity: 200 feet/year
Chemical
CHLORINATED VOCs
Vinyl Chloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
BETXs
Benzene
Xylene (total)
Ethylbenzene
Koc (a)
57
54
126
364
83
240
1100
Kd (b) Rd (c)
0.057
0.054
0.126
0.364
0.083
0.24
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.8
3.3
1.5
2.5
8.0
Contaminant Velocity (d)
(feet/year)
Pathl
32
33
24
13
29
17
6
Path 2
150
150
110
61
130
79
25
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs)
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
PCBs
PCBs (total)
940
5500000
1380000
530000
0.94
5500
1380
530
7
35000
8700
3400
6.3
<0.01
<0.01
0.013
29
<0.01
0.023
0.06
PHTHALATES
Dibutyl Phthlate
Diethyl Phthlate
170000
142
170
0.142
1100
1.9
0.041
23
0.19
110
NOTES:
(a) Koc = Organic carbon partitioning coefficient
(b) Kd = Distribution coefficient = Koc * organic carbon fraction
(c) Rd o Retardation coefficient = 1 + Kd * bulk density/effective porosity
(d) Contaminant velocity = groundwater velocity/Rd
-------
Table
ESTIMATED VERTICAL MIGRATION RATES
FOR REPRESENTATIVE COMPOUNDS
Assumed Bulk Density:
Assumed Effective Porosity:
Assumed Organic Carbon Fraction:
Groundwater Velocity:
Chemical
CHLORINATED VOCs
Vinyl Chloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
BETXs
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
POLYCNUCLEAR AROMAT1CS (PNAs)
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
PCBs
PCBs (total)
PHTHALATES
Dibutyl Phthlate
Diethyi Phthlate
1.9
0.1
0.001
0.25
Koc
57
65
126
364
83
1100
240
1300
680000
1380000
530000
170000
142
g/cc
feet/year
(a) Kd (b)
0.057
0.065
0.126
0.364
0.083
1.1
0.24
1.3
680
1380
530
170
0.142
Rd (c)
2.1
2.2
3.4
7.9
2.6
22
5.6
26
12900
26200
10100
3230
3.7
Contaminant (d)
Velocity
(ft/yr)
0.12
0.11
0.07
0.03
0.10
0.01
0.04
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
NOTES:
(a) Koc = Organic carbon partitioning coefficient
(b) Kd = Distribution coefficient = Koc * organic carbon fraction
(c) Rd = Retardation coefficient = 1 + Kd * bulk density/effective porosity
(d) Contaminant velocity = groundwater velocity/Rd
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
BETX contamination, although it is not known from which landfill those
compounds originated. Regardless of the source, the contaminants are
potentially migrating to the Clinton River in this area.
The Oil Seep Area is a discharge for groundwater and separate phase liquids,
and surface water in that area is contaminated. The small ponds south of the
Oil Seep Area and the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal are also groundwater discharge
areas. Surface water samples taken from these areas have shown BETX
contamination.
MOVEMENT OF SEPARATE PHASE LIQUIDS
Observations at the site indicate the separate phase liquids are present in the
coarser sand and gravel facies of the upper aquifer or at the base of the refuse
and have not generally penetrated into the finer sands. Movement of the free
product is apparently controlled by the distribution of the coarser material. Oil
samples taken from the Oil Seep Area contain PNAs at concentrations that
exceed their solubility in water. These separate phase PNAs would normally
have sunk to the bottom of the aquifer and not been discharged at the Oil Seep
Area had they not been confined to the coarser material in the upper part of
the upper aquifer.
Surface runoff consists of both surface water movement and soil transported by
the water. Surface water at the site consists of ponded water at the Oil Seep
Area and swampy areas south of the oil seeps. A small pond exists at the north
end of Phase III Landfill. Remnants of the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal exist
along the southern boundary of the site but exhibit little or no flow because of
road crossings that dam the canal at various locations.
Compaction or settling at the Phase I Landfill has resulted in shallow
depressions that collect precipitation. The precipitation probably infiltrates into
4-13
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
the ground rather than running off the landfill. Runoff reaching the ditches
along the side of the railroad grade probably accumulates in the ditches and
infiltrates into the ground or evaporates. Ditches along the access road to the
EPA PCB storage building drain into swampy areas on either side of the road.
Currently, runoff from the site to the drainage ditches along Ryan Road does
not appear to be possible as drainage patterns are away from the ditches and
toward the wetlands south of the Phase I Landfill. In the past, however, runoff
from the Oil Seep Area may have flowed along the south side of the railroad
grade to Ryan Road and then south to the wetlands near the Ryan Road bridge
over the Clinton River.
Runoff is minimal because of the soil cover over the landfills and because of the
tendency for precipitation to infiltrate into the porous soils at the site.
Contaminated surface water from the Oil Seep Area moves south through the
old gravel pit ponds, but probably migrates no farther than the Clinton-
Kalamazoo Canal.
The velocity of the separate phase liquids is difficult to quantify. A reasonable
assumption would be that they are moving at a rate no greater than that of the
groundwater.
SUMMARY
Atmospheric releases of VOCs, wind-borne dust, migration of contaminated
water to groundwater discharge areas, and surface runoff constitute routes by
which chemicals may migrate from the site.
VOCs in the source areas may volatilize, rise through the refuse and escape to
the atmosphere, although air sampling has not quantified differences in VOC
concentrations upwind and downwind of the site. Atmospheric VOCs have been
4-14
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
measured near the Oil Seep Area and during excavations of test pits. Surface
erosion may result in contaminated surface soils being carried by the wind to
areas off the site.
Groundwater in the upper aquifer is becoming contaminated as it passes through
the site and migrates toward the Clinton River (southward from the eastern
portion of the site and westward from the western portion of the site).
Contaminated groundwater (primarily BETX and chlorinated VOC compounds)
has been detected downgradient of the site. Groundwater is discharging into
ponds and wetlands between the landfills and the Clinton River as well as the
Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. Surface water contamination has been detected in
these areas. The upper aquifer terminates at the edge of the Clinton River
Valley, and groundwater is expected to discharge to the surface before it reaches
the river. The Phase III Landfill covers potential seeps at the west side of the
site and provides a potential groundwater pathway to the wetlands alongside the
Clinton River.
Separate phase liquids are migrating from the Phase I Landfill to the Oil Seep
Area. The movement of separate phase liquids apparently is confined to the
coarser material in the upper portion of the upper aquifer.
Surface runoff through ditches along the old Conrail tracks may have carried
contamination (primarily PNAs) toward Ryan Road, although contamination
observed along Ryan Road may be related to road runoff. Contaminated
sediment from the Oil Seep Area may be migrating southward through the series
of small ponds. The Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal is probably the southernmost
limit of runoff transported contamination.
GLT959/010.50
4-15
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the baseline risk assessment prepared for the
G&H Landfill site. The baseline public health risk assessment can be
found in Appendix B, and the baseline environmental evaluation can be
found in Appendix E. Support information can be found in Appendix C
(Risk Assessment Methodology) and Appendix D (Risk Calculations).
A baseline risk assessment is an evaluation of potential threats to public
health and the environment posed by a site in the absence of any remedial
action—i.e., the no-action alternative (U.S. EPA 1988). It identifies and
characterizes the toxicity of contaminants of concern, potential exposure
pathways, potential human and environmental receptors, and the extent of
expected impact or threat under the conditions defined for the site. The
purpose is to characterize the potential risk from the site to support a
decision to proceed with a feasibility study of potential remedial actions.
The baseline risk assessment for the G&H Landfill site was based on the
following major assumptions:
• No remedial action will be taken.
• No development will occur on the landfill because of
geotechnical limitations.
• No groundwater use restrictions are in place.
5-1
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
For the purpose of risk estimation, contaminant
concentrations will not change over time.
IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Sixty-six of the 84 chemicals detected at the G&H Landfill site were
identified as chemicals of potential concern. The selected chemicals of
concern and selection criteria are presented in Table 5-1. Chemicals were
selected primarily on the basis of available toxicity values (i.e., slope factors
or reference dose values). Additional chemicals were included based on
frequency of detection, relative abundance, and toxicity.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the primary chemical groups associated with the
site include PNAs, PCBs, BETX compounds, chlorinated volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), phthalates, and inorganic chemicals. Chemicals that
were detected at the site and excluded from the risk assessment are
described in Appendix B.
5-2
-------
Page I of 2
Table 5-1
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND SELECTION CRITERIA
G & H LANDFILL SITE
CHEMICAL
SELECTION BASED ON
TOXICITY VALUE OR
CURRENT STANDARD
SELECTION BASED ON
OTHER FACTORS
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetone
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzoic Acid
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Butanone
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chromium
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide
DDT
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Di-butyl phthalate
1,1 -Dichloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Diethyl phthalate
e
e
a
a/d
b/d
b/d
b/d
c
c
c
c
b
a
a/d
b/d
a/b/d
a/d
a/b
a/b/d
a
a/b/d
a/d
a/b/d
a/b/d
c
a/d
a/d
a/b/d
c
a/d
a/b
b/d
a/b/d
a/d
a/d
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 5-1
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND SELECTION CRITERIA
G & H LANDFILL SITE
SELECTION BASED ON
TOXICITY VALUE OR SELECTION BASED ON
CHEMICAL CURRENT STANDARD OTHER FACTORS
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno[ 1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Nickel
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PCB
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vanadium
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Zinc
a/d
-
-
c
a/d
a/d
a/d
a
a
a
a/b
a
a/d
b/d
b/d
-
a/d
a
a/d
a/d
a/b/d
a/d
a/d
a/b/d
b/d
a
b/d
a/d
a/d
e
e
e
e
e
e
-
-
-
-
-
e
e
-
e
e
e
e
-
-
e
e
e
e
e
-
e
e
e
a: Selected based on having a reference dose value.
b: Selected based on having a cancer slope factor.
c: Selected based on being a carcinogenic PAH, and slope factor based on Benzo[a]pyrene.
d: Selected based on having a current drinking water standard or criteria.
e: Selected based on frequency of occurrence and relative abundance.
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
TOXICITY PROFILES
Detailed summary toxicity profiles for chemicals detected at the site are
presented in Appendix B, Table B-5. The main effects associated with the
major chemical groups found at the site are summarized as follows:
• PNAs—PNAs have been associated with lung, stomach, and
skin cancers. Carcinogenicity has been associated with the
4- and 5-ring PAHs such as benzo[a]pyrene and
benzo[a]anthracene. Noncarcinogenic effects include
damage to proliferating tissue and chronic dermatitis.
Naphthalene, a noncarcinogenic PNA, has been associated
with cataracts.
• PCBs—PCBs have produced diarrhea, loss of appetite, and
liver damage in laboratory animals exposed to high
concentrations. Adverse reproductive effects, fetotoxicity
and an increase in liver carcinomas have also been
reported.
• BETX Compounds—Benzene is a human and animal
carcinogen associated with leukemia. Toluene and xylene
cause depression of the central nervous system.
• Chlorinated VOCs—These compounds generally act as
central nervous system depressants causing dizziness and
incoordination. Chronic exposure may cause liver or kidney
5-3
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
damage. Tetrachloroethene and 1,2-dichloroethane have
shown carcinogenic effects in laboratory animals.
• Inorganic Chemicals—Arsenic is a known human and skin
carcinogen. Cadmium is associated with respiratory and
kidney toxicity and linked to prostate and lung cancer.
Lead is toxic to the nervous system, blood, and
cardiovascular system. Zinc is associated with fever, nausea,
and stomach disturbances.
Thirty-three of the contaminants detected at the site are classified as
known, potential, or probable human carcinogens by the U.S. Carcinogen
Assessment Group. The classification of these carcinogens is presented in
Table 5-2.
DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS
Toxicity is dependent upon the dose or concentration of the substance (i.e.,
the dose-response relationship). Toxicity values are a quantitative
expression of the dose-response relationship for a chemical. Toxicity values
take the form of reference doses (for noncarcinogenic effects) and slope
factors (for carcinogenic effects), both of which are specific to exposure
routes.
The reference dose (RfD) is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning
perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human
population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious noncarcinogenic effects during a lifetime.
The carcinogenic slope factor is defined as the upper 95 percent confidence
limit of the amount of risk per unit of exposure.
5-4
-------
Table 5-2
CARCINOGENIC POTENCIES
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Oral Route:
Inhalation Route:
Chemical
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perlyene
Beryllium
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chromium VI
Chyrsene
ODD
DDT
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichlorocthane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Indenofl ,2,3-cd]pyrene
Lead
Methylene chloride
N -N itrosodipheny lamine
PCB
PAHs
1 , 1 ,2,2 Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Weight-of
Evidence
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
-
B2
B2
.
C
B2
62
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2/C
C
B2
C
B2
A
Slope Factor
mg/kg-day)-!
2
0.029
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
-
1.1
0.014
-
-
0.13
0.0061
-
11.5
0.24
0.34
11.5
0.091
0.091
0.6
11.5
.
0.0075
0.0049
7.7
11.5
0.2
0.051
0.057
0.011
2.3
e
Source
e
IRIS
d
d
d
b
d
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
-
IRIS
IRIS
-
d
IRIS
IRIS
d
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
d
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST(v)
b
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
f
HEAST
i
Date
-
12-1-88
-
-
-
-
-
9-7-88
3-1-88
8-1-89
9-7-88
-
6-30-88
6-30-88
-
-
8-22-88
8-22-88
-
7-1-89
8-1-89
12-1-88
-
9-26-88
10- -89
3- -88
7- -89
-
3- -88
7- -89
9-26-88
.
7-1-89
Weight-of
Evidence
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
Bl
B2
B2
A
B2
-
B2
B2
-
62
C
62
62
62
B2
B2
B2/C
C
B2
C
62
A
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Two primary sources of toxicity values were used. The first source is the
U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. If a
toxicity value was not available through IRIS, the latest available Quarterly
Update of Health Effects Summary Table (HEAST) was used. The critical
toxicity values used in this assessment are summarized in Tables 5-2
and 5-3.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The exposure assessment identified the means by which receptors (humans
or terrestrial and aquatic wildlife) can come in contact with contaminants
from the G&H Landfill site. Exposure can occur when contaminants
migrate from the site to points of contact with receptors or receptors come
onto the site and have contact with contaminated media. A list of
potential exposure pathways for the site was developed (Table 5-4) and
evaluated.
The potential exposure pathways were evaluated based on site
characteristics, land use, contaminant distributions, and population
characteristics, and the most feasible exposure pathways for the G&H
Landfill site were identified (Table 5-5). These pathways were evaluated
either quantitatively or qualitatively depending on the information available.
Commercial or residential development of this property could result in
exposures of future site occupants if groundwater is used for water supply
or site development exposes buried waste. However, the future
development of the G&H Landfill site, in the area of the Phase I Landfill,
was not considered to be feasible. Geotechnical and safety considerations,
5-5
-------
Page I of 3
Table 5-3
REFERENCE DOSES
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Chemical
ORAL ROUTE:
Acetone
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzole acid
Beryllium
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Butanone
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon disulflde
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Cyanide
ODD
DDT
Di-n-biitylphlhalatc
1 , 1 -Dichloroetluine
1 ,2-Dicliloroethanc
Reference
Dose(RfD)
rag/kg/day
0.1
0.0004
0.001 d
0.05
4
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.2
0.0005
0.1
0.0007
0.02
0.01
1
0.005
0.037 e
0.02 f
-
0.0005
0.1
0.1
-
Source
(a)
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
.
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
-
Date
7-1-89
3-1-88
7-1-89
8-1-89
8-1-89
9-7-88
8-1-89
3-1-88
7-1-89
10-1-89
2-1-89
6-30-88
7-1-89
6-30-88
8-1-89
3-1-88
7-1-89
9-7-88
-
8-22-88
9-7-88
7-1-89
.
Critical Effect
Increased liver and kidney
weight and nephrotoxicity
Longevity, blood glucose,
and cholesterol
Keratosis and
hyperpigmentation
Increased blood pressure
Human daily per capita
No adverse effects
Increased relative liver
weight
Fetotoxicity in rats
Effects on body weight
gain, testes, liver,
kidney
Significant proteinuria
Fetal toxicity/
malformations
Liver lesions
Liver and kidney effects
Fatty cyst formation in
liver
No effects observed
No effects reported
-
Weight loss, thyroid
effects and myelin
degeneration
-
Liver lesions
Increased mortality
None
-
UF
(b)
1000
1000
-
100
1
100
1000
1000
100
10
100
1000
1000
1000
100
500
-
100
-
100
1000
1000
-
MF
(c)
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
-
1
10
1
-
5
-
1
1
-
-
Confidence
inRfD
Low
Low
-
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
-
High
Medium
Medium
-
Medium
Low
Low
-
Medium
-
Medium
Low
-
-
-------
Pii"c 2 of 3
Table 5-3
REFERENCE DOSES
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Chemical
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methylene chloride
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Nickel
Phenol
Pyrene
Selenium
Silver
1 , 1 ,2,2 Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachtoroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-Triclilorocthnnc
Reference
Dose (RID)
rag/kg/day
0.009
0.02
0.8
-
0.1
i
0.2
0.0003
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.4 d
0.02 g
0.6
-
0.003 d
0.003
-
0.01
0.3
0.09
Source
(a)
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
-
IRIS
-
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS
-
HEAST
IRIS
-
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
Date
12-1-88
1-1-89
9-7-88
-
9-7-88
-
7-1-89
7-1-89
10-1-89
7-1-89
1-1-89
1-1-89
7-1-89
3-1-88
6-1-89
-
7-1-89
6-30-88
-
3-1-88
9-7-88
6-1-89
Critical Effect
Hepatic lesions
Increased serum alkaline
phosphatase in male mice
Decreased growth rate,
food consumption and
altered organ weights
-
Liver and kidney toxicity
-
CNS
CNS
Liver toxicity
Increased liver and kidney
weight and nephrotoxicity
Decreased body weights
and neurotoxicity
Decreased body weights
and neurotoxicity
Ocular and internal
lesions
Decreased body and organ
weights
Reduced fetal body weight
in rats
-
hair and nail loss;
dermatitis
Argyria
-
Hepatotoxicity in mice,
weight gain in rats
LDH levels
Clinical chemistry and
hematological parameters
Slight growth retardation
UF
C>)
1000
1000
1000
-
1000
-
100
10
100
1000
1000
1000
100
100
100
-
15
2
-
1000
100
1000
MF
(c)
1
1
1
-
1
-
-
-
1
1
1
1
-
3
1
-
-
1
-
1
1
1
Confidence
in RID
Medium
Low
Low
-
Low
-
-
-
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
-
Medium
Low
-
-
Medium
-
Medium
Medium
Medium
-------
3 of 3
Table 5-3
REFERENCE DOSES
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Chemical
Reference
Dose(RfD)
mg/kg/day
Source
(a)
Date
Critical Effect
UF
MF
(c)
Confidence
inRfD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vanadium
Xylenes
Zinc
in guinea pigs
0.004 IRIS 9-26-88 Clinical serum chemistry 1000
0.007 HEAST 7-1-89 None observed 100
2 IRIS 7-1-89 Hyperactivity, decreased 100
body weight and increased
mortality (males)
0.2 HEAST 7-1-89 Anemia 10
Medium
Medium
INHALATION ROUTE
2-Butanone
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Xylenes
0.09
HEAST 7-1-89
CNS
1000
0.02
HEAST 7-1-89 Liver and kidney effects
2 mg/m3 HEAST(v) 7-1-89 CNS effects, eye and nose
irritation
0.3mg/m3 HEAST(v) 7-1-89 CNS effects, nose and
1000
100
a. Sources of Toxicity Values:
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System. U.S. EPA 1988.
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables - Quarterly Summary. U.S. EPA 1989
b. UF-Uncertainty Factor
c. MF-Modifying Factor
d. The oral RfD is being reconsidered by the RfD workgroup
e. Based on proposed drinking water standard of 1.3 mg/1
f. Cyanide value based on free cyanide
g. Nickel value based on nickel-soluble salts
h. A1C for lead listed in the SPHEM (0.0014) withdrawn by EPA.
-------
Pasic I of 2
Table 5-4
ANALYSIS OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
O & H LANDFILL SITE
SOURCE RELEASE MECHANISM TRANSPORT MEDIUM EXPOSURE POINT POTENTIAL RECEPTORS EXPOSURE ROUTE
Surface Soil Volatilization Air Onsite Site visitors Inhalation
and dust release
Offsite - houses Residents Inhalation
Offsite - businesses Workers
Direct contact
Surface soils Receptor contacts Onsite Site visitors Ingestion
Dermal absorption
Runoff Runoff Clinton River
Clinton- Recreational Users Ingcstion
Kalamazoo Canal Dermal Absorption
Subsurface Soil Volatilization Air Onsite Site visitors Inhalation
and
Buried Waste
Offsite - houses Residents Inhalation
Offsite - businesses Workers
Leaching & Groundwater Onsite Onsite well users Ingestion
desorplion Dermal absorption
Inhalation
Offsite Existing Ingestion
groundwater users Dermal absorption
Inhalation
Offsite Future Ingcstion
groundwaler users Dermal absorption
Inhalation
RETAIN ? RATIONALE
No Landfill contents covered with soil.
Surface soil has limited
contamination.
No Landfill contents covered with soil.
Surface soil has limited
contamination.
No Landfill contents covered with soil,
Surface soil has limited
contamination.
No Landfill contents covered with soil.
Surface soil has limited
contamination.
Yes Substantial amounts of volatiles
detected in test pits and soil
borings. Site access unrestricted.
Yes Substantial amounts of volatiles
detected in test pits and toil
borings. Residences and businesses
located nearby.
No No current onsite groundwater use.
Site development is not feasible
due to landfill characteristics.
Groundwater currently used as a
Yes potable water source. Contaminants
detected in groundwater.
No restrictions on groundwater use.
Yes Population increasing in areas
adjacent to site.
-------
I'aac 2 of 2
Table 5-4
ANALYSIS OF HXPOSURE PATHWAYS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
SOURCE
RELEASE MECHANISM TRANSPORT MEDIUM
EXPOSURE POINT
POTENTIAL RECEPTORS EXPOSURE ROUTE RETAIN? RATIONALE
Leaching & Groundwater Clinton River Recreational users Accidental
desorption discharge to Clinton - ingestion
surface water Kalamazoo Canal Dermal absorption
People who consume
contaminated fish. Ingestion
Buried Waste Leaching Leachate Oil Seep Area Site visitors Ingestion
Dermal absorption
People who consume Ingestion
contaminated wildlife.
Onsite Direct contact with onsite sediments Onsitc Site visitors Ingestion
Sediments in place Dermal absorption
No evidence of release of
Yes contaminated groundwater to river/
canal although river and canal are
local discharge poults.
People have access to the Clinton
Yes River and fish. Contaminants
detected in the river can not be
attributed only to the site.
Yes No restrictions on site access.
Contaminants detected in leachate.
People known to hunt onsite.
Yes Contaminants have been detected in
organisms trapped in areas adjacent
to site, but contaminants can not be
attributed only to the site.
Yes No restrictions on site access.
Contaminants detected in onsite
sediments.
-------
Table 5-5
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ADDRESSED
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Receptor/Location
Media
Exposure Route
Quantitative
Assessment
Qualitative
Assessment
Site Visitor/Onsite
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Oil Seep Sediment
Onsite Pond Sediment
Offsite Ditch Sediment
Canal Sediment
Oil Seep Water
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
X
X
X
Ambient Air
(Volatilization from
Subsurface Soil)
Inhalation
X
Resident/Offsite
Groundwater Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
X
X
Ambient Air
(Volatilization from
Subsurface Soil)
Inhalation
Recreation Users/
Clinton River;
Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal
Wildlife-Fish Consumers/
Onsite and Offsite
Surface Water
Sediment
Wildlife
Fish
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Ingestion
Ingestion
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
such as subsidence and concerns about buildings trapping methane released
from the landfill, make development of the site unlikely.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES
Potential mechanisms for the exposure of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife to
chemicals from the G&H Landfill site were identified. They include:
• Exposure of terrestrial wildlife through direct contact with
contaminated media at the site or released from the site
• Exposure of terrestrial and aquatic organisms in the ponds
and wetlands adjacent to the site, the Clinton River, or the
Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal to contaminants released from the
site to those water bodies by way of groundwater discharge
or site runoff
POTENTIAL HUMAN EXPOSURES
Potential human exposures resulting from people coming onto the site and
having contact with contaminants and exposures resulting from the offsite
migration of chemicals were identified. Feasible potential human exposure
pathways onsite include:
• Direct contact (i.e., ingestion and dermal absorption) by site
visitors with contaminated media (i.e, surface soil, sediment,
oil seeps)
• Inhalation by site visitors of volatile compounds released
from the Phase I Landfill
5-6
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Feasible potential human exposure pathways offsite include:
• Exposure (ingestion, dermal absorption, or inhalation) to
chemicals released from the site to the shallow groundwater
used as a water supply source
• Inhalation by offsite residents of volatile compounds
released from the Phase I Landfill and transported offsite
• Direct contact with contaminated surface water and
sediment by people engaged in recreational activities in
areas adjacent to the site
• Consumption of wildlife contaminated by the site
The potential human exposure pathways are described in the following
sections. The exposure assumptions for the exposure pathways that were
quantified are presented in Table 5-6.
Site Visitors
The site is located on the edge of an expanding urban area. The current
land use in this area is mixed rural, residential and industrial (see
Figure 5-1). Residential areas lie just east and north of the site. The
Utica-Rochester Recreation Area lies south of the site, and portions of it
are part of the south section of the site. Some industrial facilities border
the east portion of the site.
The site is accessible to visitors. Site visitors (especially children) may
come onto the site to play or participate in recreational activities. The
most likely visitors are people living in the residential areas near the site.
5-7
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 5-6
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Exposure Factor
Value
Source
Site Visitor - Soil and Sediment
Body Weight (average)
Body Weight (child)
Number days/year exposed
Number years exposed
Years in lifetime
Soil ingestion rate
Concentration - All sediments except canal
Concentration - Canal sediment and surface
soil
Site Visitor - Oil Seep Water
Body Weight (average)
Body Weight (child)
Number days/year exposed
Number years exposed
Years in lifetime
Water ingestion rate
Water dermal absorption rate
Percent submersed
Duration in water
Concentration
Site Visitor - Ambient Air
Body Weight (average)
Hours exposed per day
Number days/year exposed
Number years exposed
Years in lifetime
Inhalation rate
Concentration
70-kg
35-kg
25 days
5 years
70 years
0.1 g/day
95th percentile -
arithmetic mean
Highest detected
70-kg
35-kg
1 day
1 year
70 years
0.05 L/day
0.5
75
10 minutes
95th percentile -
arithmetic mean
70-kg
8 hours
25 days
5 years
70 years
1.4 m3/hour
Modeled based on
95th percentile
arithmetic mean of
Test Pit Data
U.S. EPA 1989
ICRP 1976
a
a
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
—
U.S. EPA 1989
ICRP 1976
a
a
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
a
a
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
a
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
—
-------
Page 2 of 2
Exposure Factor
Table 5-6
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Value
Source
Offsite Groundwater Use Exposure
Body Weight (average)
Number days/year exposed
Number years exposed
Years in lifetime
Water Lngestion rate
Water dermal absorption rate
Percent submersed
Bath duration
Concentration
70-kg
365 days
70 years
70 years
2 liters/day
0.5
75
15 minutes
95th percentile
arithmetic mean
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
Inhalation Offsite Resident
Body Weight (average)
Hours exposed per day
Number days/year exposed
Number years exposed
Years in lifetime
Inhalation rate
Concentration
70-kg
24 hours
365 days
70 years
70 years
20 m3/day
Modeled based on
95th percentile
arithmetic mean
Test Pit Data
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
U.S. EPA 1989
a. Based on site-specific estimate.
-------
Q
_l
5
i
§
^
I
RESIDENTIAL AREA
•••iiitiiii
"i ^'
?"nrAi
\\
PHASE III
LANDFILL
X.X V
X, 'X^**. ''
*X/ ^v
PHASE II LANDFILL
v
«l«»
OIL /_;
SEEPAGE AREA
> v 23 - MILE ROAD
II :
.1 *
II :
M :A
*f *!,-
II : ,i N
". Ill
II :,i
II : i
il J
• ^^ •" "™~
PHASE 1 LANDFILL -^ :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
\
** *
'xX | x " — *~
^^^ *** **
**** '^Xw****
^» ^^x '»
tm f 9* ^
mmmmmmmmlmmmm • • 1 • •• • f 1 fflT ? ^"^w ^^^ *"^*
• •••••• •»•••• • • •iii gJ^Ty v*1* ». ^^^ ^^ *»..
,-^ f xySSJSSSXSJSfc^v^/^
" — " — n "^
_\\°
1^.
^^
1 "A\
1 \\
f "^Ts
AUTOMOBILE
^ DISPOSAL
YARD
"" ^ * ^s "^ ' *
/ j/ 1|
11 'i
;V Jj
i
// i\
i
i '
• i
X
i— ' r~~i>
*
I
^^^^^^^••(JWfcfc
* u i_n
COMMERCIAL f
AREA
ro
^
TS
Mf
sc
. LEGEND
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin
JS x n x «
DC
_J ^
^ «r
S
9 x--. ^
„ s- — -^
tt
:",*",
Ij
^^
//
/
x
/'
:xr^X_^._
Rochester - Utica Recreational Area
North
t
300
APPROXIMATE
SCALE \N FEET
x U.S. EPA SITE FENCE
GATE
DITCH, STREAM, OR
RIVER
TRAIL
RAILROAD GRADE
(TRACKS REMOVED)
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FIGURE 5-1
LAND USE MAP
G & H LANDFILL Rl
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
There is evidence that children have used the site as a playground in the
past (Johnson, pers. comm.). Additionally, people who use the Utica-
Rochester Recreation Area may come onto the site due to the site's
parklike appearance on the south section. Although there is no reason for
the people working in the industrial areas to enter the site, they are not
restricted.
Exposures to site visitors would be intermittent since the visitor could not
be assumed to come in contact with the site on a daily basis. Because
surface contamination is limited to certain areas of the site, the visitor may
not come into contact with contaminants during every site visit. The actual
frequency and duration of exposure for a site visitor is unknown.
Surface Soil, Sediments, and Oil Seep Area. Potential areas of surface
contamination on the site where site visitors could have contact with
contaminants would include:
• Surface soil in the Phase I Landfill
• Surface water in the Oil Seep Area
• Sediments in onsite ponds and ditches, the Oil Seep Area,
the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal, and runoff ditches bordering
the site along Ryan Road.
The most likely exposure to these areas would be direct contact, with
subsequent ingestion and dermal absorption. It was assumed that 25 visits
per year over a 5-year period would describe a reasonable maximum
exposure frequency and duration for site visitor exposures to contaminated
sediment and soil. Exposure to oil seep water was based on a one-time
accidental contact (i.e., someone falling into the Oil Seep Area).
5-8
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
Exposure was estimated for ingestion of surface soil, sediments, and surface
water (i.e., accidental swallowing after a fall into the water) and dermal
absorption of water. Dermal absorption of soil and sediments was not
addressed quantitatively because of the great variability in estimating rates
of absorption. Exposure through dermal absorption of soil would be
expected to be low relative to soil ingestion.
Ambient Air. The Phase I Landfill contains a substantial quantity of
volatile compounds. It is possible that site visitors could be exposed to
these compounds as they are released from the subsurface to the ambient
air. It was assumed that 8 hours per visit, 25 visits per year over a 5-year
period would describe a reasonable maximum exposure frequency and
duration for site visitor exposures to ambient air. Because suitable ambient
air data was not available, potential airborne concentrations were modeled
using a conservative screening level approach.
Potential inhalation exposure to chemicals that may be released from the
Oil Seep Area was not quantified in this assessment. The high detection
limits and multiphasic nature of material in the oil seeps made it difficult
to model and quantify emissions from this area.
Offsite Groundwater Use Exposures
Human exposure to contaminants in groundwater could occur if the
groundwater is used as a drinking water supply. Residents and businesses
east of the site have private wells. Contaminants have been detected in
the residential and industrial wells, as well as in monitoring wells installed
on and surrounding the site.
5-9
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The actual number of households using groundwater as a drinking water
source is unknown because many are being connected to the municipal
water system (see Figure 5-2). The businesses do not use their wells for
drinking water but mainly to wash equipment. It is anticipated that future
residents in the area would use the municipal water system, although no
groundwater restrictions are in place.
The major route of exposure would be through ingestion of contaminants
during drinking and cooking. Dermal absorption may also occur during
showering or bathing. Inhalation of volatile chemicals released into the
household during various household activities may also occur.
Exposure to groundwater was based on a daily residential use for a 70-year
lifetime. Exposure was estimated for ingestion and dermal absorption.
This assessment does not quantify inhalation exposures; however, based on
previous studies, exposure to volatile chemicals through inhalation is
approximately the same level of exposure predicted to occur through
ingestion.
Offsite Airborne Exposures
Residents and businesses are in close proximity to the site. Volatile
chemicals have been detected in subsurface samples taken from the Phase I
Landfill. These chemicals may volatilize upward through the soil and be
transported downwind to the nearby residents and businesses. Inhalation of
these chemicals may result in potential exposure to the chemicals.
Because suitable ambient air data were not available, potential airborne
chemical concentrations were modeled using a conservative screening level
approach. This approach estimated concentrations for a hypothetical
resident 300 meters east of the Phase I Landfill. It assumed emissions
5-10
-------
GL065561.RI 5-2 RES WELL SAMP 3-14-90
1.1 OCA 2
1.2 DCE 9
TCE 8
1,1 DCA 1
1,2 DCE 5
TCE 1
XYLENE 0.9
APPROXIMATE
FILL LIMITS
1,1,1 TCA 1
TCE 0.7
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
RESIDENTIALAND INDUSTRIAL
WELL SAMPLING LOCATION
FIGURE 5-2
RESIDENTIAL WELL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
AND RESULTS
G & H LANDFILL R^
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
were continuous and wind direction was always from the direction of the
landfill. A continuous 70-year exposure was assumed.
Offsite Exposure at Recreational Areas
People use the Utica-Rochester Recreation Area for hiking, picnicking,
canoeing, and fishing. They have access to the river from the Utica-
Rochester Recreation Area and may participate in activities that allow
them to contact the surface water and sediments in the river.
There are potential contaminant migration pathways to the Clinton River,
the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal, and intermediate water bodies and wetlands
through site runoff and groundwater discharge. For example, there is
evidence that leachate could discharge into the wetland area west of the
Phase III Landfill and eventually into the river. It is not known, however,
whether chemicals from the site have reached these water bodies.
Relatively low concentrations of chemicals were detected in the surface
water and sediments of the Clinton River and the Clinton-Kalamazoo
Canal. Because of another NPL site and other industrial areas near the
site, these chemicals cannot be directly attributed to the site. There are
inconclusive chemical data and insufficient information on recreational user
activity patterns to quantify this potential risk. If chemicals are released to
these waters, exposure could occur through direct contact with chemicals in
the sediment and surface water of the river or canal.
Consumption of Wildlife
People hunt and fish in the vicinity of the site. The potential for
contamination of fish and wildlife was discussed under potential
Environmental Exposures. Human exposures could occur if contaminated
5-11
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
organisms are caught and consumed. Chemicals have been detected in
wildlife trapped in the G&H study area, but because the home range of
wildlife extends beyond the site, these chemicals cannot be definitively
attributed to the site. Similarly, chemicals have been detected in fish
caught in the river and canal but cannot be definitively attributed to the
site. Because of this, potential human exposures from consumption of
wildlife were not quantified in this assessment.
PUBLIC HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION
This section summarizes the results of the public health risk
characterization.
RISK CHARACTERIZATION APPROACH
The potential exposures that were quantified were evaluated by estimating
the noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks associated with them.
Noncarcinogenic Effects
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed by comparing estimated intakes of
noncarcinogens to reference dose (RfD) values. The estimated daily intake
of a chemical by an individual route of exposure is divided by its RfD.
The result is termed a hazard quotient. There is a potential for
noncarcinogenic health effects when the hazard quotient exceeds one.
To account for potential noncarcinogenic effects from exposure to multiple
chemicals, the hazard quotients are summed to provide a hazard index.
There is a potential for noncarcinogenic health risk when the hazard index
5-12
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
exceeds one. The hazard index can exceed one even if no single chemical
intake exceeds its reference dose. In this situation, the chemicals in the
mixture are segregated by similar critical effect or target organ, and
separate hazard indices are derived for each effect. If any of the
segregated indices exceeds one, there is a potential for health risk.
Carcinogenic Risks
The potential for carcinogenic risks was evaluated by estimating the
individual excess lifetime cancer risks from exposure to the carcinogens.
Excess lifetime cancer risk is the incremental increase in the probability of
developing cancer in one's lifetime over the background probability of
developing cancer (i.e., if no exposure to site contaminants occurred). For
example, a 1 x 10"6 excess lifetime cancer risk means that for every
1,000,000 people exposed to the carcinogen during their lifetime (which is
assumed to be 70 years), the average incidence of cancer is increased by
one extra case of cancer. Because of the methods followed by the
U.S. EPA in estimating cancer slope factors, the excess lifetime cancer risks
estimated in the assessment should be regarded as upper bounds on the
potential cancer risks rather than actual representations of true cancer
risks.
SITE VISITOR RISKS
The risks associated with site visitor exposures are summarized in
Table 5-7. A comparison of estimated intakes to RfDs indicated that no
RfDs were exceeded for ingestion of surface soils or sediment or inhalation
of ambient air. The hazard index did exceed one for accidental ingestion
of oil seep water. In that case, the estimated intake of bis-(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate and butylbenzylphthalate each exceeded their respective
RfD.
5-13
-------
Table 5-7
SUMMARY OF SITE VISITOR RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
LOCATION/MEDIA
Phase I Landfill
Surface Soils
OU Seep/
Sediments
Onsite Ponds &
Ditches/Sediments
Clinton/Kalamazoo
Canal/Sediments
Offsite Ditches/
Sediments
Oil Seep/Water
Phase I Landfill/
Subsurface Soils
CHEMICAL NONCARCINOGENIC Rli
EXPOSURE EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK EXCEEDING HARZARD INDEX
PATHWAY Major Chemicals * Risk RFD (SUM FOR AREA)
Ingestion PNAs 4E-06 None
SUM 4E-06
Ingestion bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate IE-OS None
PCB 4E-06
4E-06
Ingestion SUM 4E-08 None
Ingestion SUM 1E-07 None
Ingestion SUM SE-07 None
Ingestion PCB 9E-05 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzl phthalate
SUM 9E-05
Dermal Absorption PCB 5E-06 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
5E-06
Inhalation SUM 7E-08 None
Child <0.01
Adult <0.01
Child 0.019
Adult 0.010
Child <0.01
Adult <0.01
Child 0.017
Adult <0.01
Child 0.064
Adult 0.032
Child 96
Adult 48
Child 2.1
Adult 1.0
Adult <0.01
*Chemicals with excess lifetime cancer risks equal to or greater than 1 x 10-6
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
The excess lifetime cancer risk estimate for ingestion of surface soil was
4 x 10"6. The chemicals contributing to the risk were PNAs and PCBs. No
individual chemical contributed an excess cancer risk estimate greater than
1 x 10"6. Because of limited data, the risk was based on the highest
detected concentrations in surface soil.
The highest excess lifetime cancer risk estimate for sediment ingestion was
4 x 10"6 for the sediment in the Oil Seep Area. Excess lifetime cancer risk
estimates for any of the other sediment areas did not exceed 1 x 10"*.
The excess lifetime cancer risks were estimated for ingestion (9 x 10~5) and
dermal absorption (5 x 10"6) exposure to oil seep water. The major
chemicals contributing to these risks were PCB and bis-(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate.
The excess lifetime cancer risk estimate for inhalation of ambient air was
7 x 10"8. This estimate is based on conservative screening level air
modeling; actual risk is likely to be less.
GROUNDWATER USE
People could be exposed to groundwater contaminants through the use of
groundwater as a drinking water source. Exposure could occur through
ingestion and dermal absorption. Risks were estimated based on existing
individual wells (private commercial wells) and monitoring well data
(grouped and averaged for five areas). The individual well data were
assessed as if they represented a residential water supply, although the
water is currently not used for potable uses. The risks associated with
exposures from the potable use of groundwater are summarized in
Tables 5-8 and 5-9.
5-14
-------
Table 5-8
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER USE RISKS - RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WELLS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
EXPOSURE
WELL PATHWAY
GR-01 Ingestion
GR-01 Dermal Absorption
GR-02 Ingestion
GR-02 Dermal Absorption
GR-03 Ingestion
GR-03 Dermal Absorption
GR-04 Ingestion
GR-04 Dermal Absorption
GR-13 Ingestion
GR-13 Dermal Absorption
CHEMICAL NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
EXCESS LIFETI CANCER RISK EXCEEDING HARZARD INDEX
MAJOR CHEMICALS* RISK RFD (SUM FOR AREA)
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
SUM
SUM
SUM
SUM
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
SUM
SUM
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
SUM
1, 1-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
SUM
SUM
SUM
8E-06 None
9E-06
7E-07
8E-06
1E-04
2E-04
2E-07 None
8E-06 None
IE-OS None
3E-06 None
3E-06
4E-09 None
1E-06 None
1E-04
1E-04
2E-09 None
2E-07
2E-07
2E-07 None
3E-10 None
0.011
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.002
<.01
<.01
<.01
* Chemicals with excess lifetime cancer risks equal to or greater than 1 x 10-6
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 5-9
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER USE RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
EXPOSURE
AREA PATHWAY
Area 1 Ingestion
Area 1 Dermal Absorption
Area 2 Ingestion
Area 2 Dermal Absorption
Area 3 Ingestion
Area 3 Dermal Absorption
CHEMICALS CONTRIBUTING
CARCINOGENIC RISK*
Arsenic
Benzene
bis(2-Chlorethyl)ether
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Vinyl chloride
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
Arsenic
Vinyl chloride
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
Arsenic
Benzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
Arsenic
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
Arsenic
Benzene
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
Arsenic
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
CHEMICAL
CARCINOGENIC RISK EXCEEDING
EXCESS LIFETIME RISK RFD
3E-03 None
2E-04
5E-04
3E-04
2E-06
1E-02
1E-02
1E-02
4E-06 None
2E-05
3E-05
2E-05
6E-03 None
IE-OS
7E-05
6E-03
8E-05
8E-06 None
8E-06
1E-07
2E-03 None
IE-OS
2E-03
IE-OS
3E-06 None
3E-06
2E-08
NONCARCINOGENIC
RISK HARZARD INDEX
(SUM FOR AREA)
1.8
<0.01
0.7
<0.01
1.0
<0.01
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 5-9
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER USE RISKS
O & H LANDFILL SITE
AREA
EXPOSURE CHEMICALS CONTRIBUTING CARCINOGENIC RISK
PATHWAY CARCINOGENIC RISK* EXCESS LIFETIME RISK
CHEMICAL
EXCEEDING
RFD
NONCARCINOGENIC
RISK HARZARD INDEX
(SUM FOR AREA)
Area 4 Ingestion
Arsenic
Benzene
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
1E-03
IE-OS
2E-04
None
<0.5
2E-03
2E-04
Area 4 Dermal Absorption
Arsenic
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
2E-06
None
2E-06
3E-07
Area 5 Ingestion
Area 5 Dermal Absorption
Arsenic
Trichloroethene
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
SUM
Sum w/o Arsenic
5E-04
3E-06
None
0.7
5E-04
3E-06
None
7E-07
3E-09
^Chemicals with excess lifetime cancer risks equal to or greater than 1 x 10-6
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
No estimated intakes exceeded their respective RfDs for any of the
industrial wells or monitoring well groupings. Based on these estimates, the
potential noncarcinogenic health risks from ingestion or dermal absorption
of groundwater do not appear to be of concern.
For individual commercial wells, the highest excess lifetime risk estimate for
ingestion was 2 x 10"* for well GR-01. The contaminants contributing the
most to the risk were vinyl chloride, trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and
1,1-dichloroethene. The other risk estimates for the industrial wells ranged
from 1 x 10"4 to 3 x 10~*. The excess lifetime risk estimates for dermal
absorption exposure ranged from 2 x 10~7 to 3 x 10"10.
The excess lifetime cancer risks from groundwater ingestion exposure based
on monitoring well groups ranged from 1 x 10"2 (Area 1) to 5 x 10"4
(Area 5). These estimates include concentrations of arsenic detected
onsite. Chemicals contributing risk estimates greater than 1 x 10"6 include
arsenic, benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether,
1,1-dichloroethane, N-nitrosodiphenylamine, trichloroethene, and vinyl
chloride. For dermal absorption exposure, excess lifetime cancer risks were
estimated to range from 3 x 10'5 (Area 1) to 7 x 10'7 (Area 5).
Concentrations detected in individual commercial and monitoring wells were
compared to current U.S. EPA drinking water standards and criteria. The
results of this comparison are summarized in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. The
MCL and MCLG for vinyl chloride were exceeded for two out of five
commercial wells. The MCLG for trichloroethene was exceeded in four of
five wells.
For monitoring wells, the MCL and Health Advisory were exceeded for
arsenic in wells located in Areas 1, 2, and 3. The secondary MCL for iron
5-15
-------
Table 5-10
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
WELL CONCENTRATIONS WHICH EXCEED CRITERIA
0 & H LANDFILL SITE
(a) Criteria
Well Concentration Criteria Concentration
Location Chemical ug/1 Exceeded ug/1
GR01-01 Benzene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
GR02-01 Trichloroethene
GR03-01 Trichloroethene
GR04-01 Vinyl chloride
GR13-01 Trichloroethene
0.8 MCLG
25 MCL
MCLG
2 MCL
MCLG
8 MCL
MCLG
1 MCLG
2 MCL
MCLG
0.7 MCLG
0
5
0
2
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
(a) Criteria is defined as follows:
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Levels
MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
-------
Table 5-11
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONCENTRATIONS THAT EXCEED
U.S. EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.CRTTERIA AND GUIDELINES
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Well Area
Area 1
Phase I Landfill
and
Oil Seep Areas
(52 total wells)
Area 2
Phase II Landfill
(12 total wells)
Chemical
Arsenic
Benzene
Iron
Manganese
Vinyl chloride
Nickel
Xylene
Ethyl benzene
Aroclor 1254
Barium
Aluminum
Toluene
Lead
Trich'oroethene
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Benzene
Vinyl chloride
Aluminum
Xylene
(a)
Criteria
MCL
DW
MCLG
MCL
SMCL
SMCL
MCLG
MCL
TP
SMCL-Prop
DW
MCL-Prop
MCLG-Prop
SMCL-Prop
MCL-Prop
MCLG-Prop
MCLG-Prop
MCL-Prop
MCL
MCL
MCLG-Prop
DW
SMCL-Prop
SMCL-Prop
MCL-Prop
MCLG-Prop
DW
MCL-Prop
MCLG-Prop
DW
MCLG
MCL
DW
SMCL
SMCL
TP
MCLG
MCL
MCLG
SMCL-Prop
SMCL-Prop
Criteria
Concentration
(«gfl)
50
50
0
5
300
50
0
2
15.4
20
400
10000
10000
30
700
700
0
0.5
1000
5000
5000
1500
50
40
2000
2000
2420
5
20
20
0
50
50
300
50
15.4
0
5
0
50
20
Number of
Wells Exceeding
Criteria
17
17
38
28
46
41
11
9
7
17
12
1
1
14
5
5
10
10
9
3
3
3
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
11
8
3
7
5
1
1
1
-------
Table 5-11
SUMMARY OF MONITORING WELL CONCENTRATIONS THAT EXCEED
U.S. EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Well Area
Area 3
Phase HI Landfill
(7 wells total)
Area 4
Clinton/
Kalamazoo Canal
(24 wells total)
Area 5
Automobile
Disposal Yard
(16 wells total)
•
Chemical
Arsenic
Lead
Aluminum
Barium
Iron
Manganese
Benzene
Nickel
Chloroform
2-Butanone
Iron
Manganese
Benzene
Nickel
Lead
Aluminum
Barium
Vinyl chloride
Iron
Manganese
. Trichloroetheue
Aluminum
Lead
Chromium
(a)
Criteria
MCL
DW
MCL-Prop
SMCL-Prop
MCL
SMCL
SMCL
MCLG
MCL
TP
MCL
DW
SMCL
SMCL
MCLG
MCL
TP
MCL-Prop
SMCL-Prop
MCL
MCLG
MCL
SMCL
SMCL
MCLG
MCL
SMCL-Prop
MCL-Prop
MCLG-Prop
DW
MCL
MCL
MCL-Prop
MCLG-Prop
DW
Criteria
Concentration
(ug/1)
50
50
5
50
1000
300
50
0
5
15.4
100
170
300
50
0
5
15.4
5
50
1000
0
2
300
50
0
5
50
5
20
20
50
50
100
100
120
Number of
Wells Exceeding
Criteria
1
1
2
6
3
7
7
5
5
1
1
1
19
17
8
4
3
1
2
2
3
3
6
14
4
4
7
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
(a) Criteria abbreviations:
MCL -
MCLG -
SMCL -
DW -
Prop -
TP -
Maximum Contaminant
Maximum Contaminant
Level
Level Goal
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
Proposed standard or criteria
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Toxicity
Protection
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
and manganese was exceeded for wells in all areas. Concentrations of vinyl
chloride exceeded the MCL (Areas 1, 2, and 4) and detected
concentrations of benzene exceeded the MCL and MCLG (Areas 1, 2, and
3). Other detected concentrations of contaminants that exceeded criteria
include PCB, lead, barium, and trichloroethene.
OFFSITE AIR EXPOSURES
The excess lifetime cancer risk estimate for inhalation of ambient air at a
receptor location 300 meters from the Phase I Landfill was 1 x 10"6. This
estimate is based on simple, conservative, screening level emission and air
transport modeling. Conservative assumptions were made to describe
exposure (i.e., continuous exposure over a lifetime). Consequently, the
potential offsite inhalation risks are likely to be less than those estimated.
MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES AND ASSUMPTIONS
The baseline risk assessment has several major uncertainties in exposure
estimation and data use. A conservative approach was taken when making
assumptions that describe potential human exposures. For example, the
number of times a person may come on the site is unknown. As a result,
generally conservative assumptions were used to describe exposure
frequency and duration.
The groundwater use was assumed to be residential, although the actual
number of people using private wells as a potable water source is unknown.
However, since there are no groundwater restrictions in place, this was
deemed to be reasonable. Onsite groundwater data were used to develop
conservative estimates of potential offsite groundwater concentrations.
5-16
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
For this assessment, the future condition of the site was assumed to be
generally the same as for current site conditions. Because of geotechnical
considerations (subsidence and landfill gas generation), the site is unlikely
to be developed into a residential community or for industrial use. The
site may be used in the future as a park or golf course. In that case,
additional soils, sod, and vegetation that would limit direct contact with the
site contaminants might be placed over the site.
A major uncertainty is the estimation of risks based only on the current
availability of data for the site. The results from samples collected from
the Oil Seep Area have not yet been received for inorganic chemicals. The
calculated risks in this area may be underestimated because of the inability
to address all contaminants that may be present. Existing air monitoring
data were not suitable for the risk assessment; consequently, a conservative
screening level air modeling approach was used.
SUMMARY
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the potential threat to public health
and the environment from the G&H Landfill site in the absence of any
remedial action. Exposure settings were developed to describe potential
human exposures. A summary of the estimated risks associated with the
exposure settings is presented in Table 5-12. Potential effects on the
environment were also evaluated.
SUMMARY OF HUMAN EXPOSURE
The human exposures of greatest potential concern based on the
quantitative risk characterization include:
5-17
-------
Table 5-12
SUMMARY OF RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Page 1 of 3
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Risk Characterization
Primary Chemicals of Interest
Comments
HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
Site visitors come in
direct contact with
surface soils, onsite
sediments, or exposed
waste (i.e. oil seep)
Onsite
Cancer Risk-Surface Soil
4 X 10-6
Cancer Risk-Sediment in
Oil Seep Area 4 X 10-6
Cancer Risk-Other Onsite
Sediments-ranged from 1 x 10-7
to 4 X 10-8
PCBs, PNAs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
PCB
Surface soil contamination
sparsely distributed in the
Phase I Landfill.
Sediments in oil seep ponds.
Risk doesn't include inorganic
data.
Site visitors inhale
volatile chemicals
released from buried
waste
Onsite
Noncarcinogenic Risks-
Hazard Index <1
Cancer Risk - Ambient Air
7 X 10-8
No individual chemical intakes
exceeded its RfD.
Risks based on available data;
Inorganic data not received.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Exposures likely
to be lower.
Noncarcinogenic Risks -
Hazard Index < 1
No individual chemical intakes
exceeded its RfD.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Exposures likely
to be lower. ..•
Site visitors come in
accidental direct contact.
with contaminated oil seep
surface water.
Onsite
Ingestion Cancer Risk - '*;
9 X 10-5
Dermal Absorption Cancer Risk •
5 X 10-6
, ~ Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
PCB
k Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
PCB , •"•-
Inorganic chemical data not
received.
Noncarcinogenic Risks -
Hazard Index > 1 for both
ingestion and dermal
absorption.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
Butylbenzylphthalate
Inorganic chemical data not
received.
-------
Table 5-12
SUMMARY OF RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Page 2 of 3
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Risk Characterization
Primary Chemicals of Interest
Comments
Release of contaminants
to groundwater used as
drinking water supply
Existing residential,
industrial wells
Cancer risks individual
private wells 1 X 10-4 to
2 X 10-7.
l,l-dichloroethane,l benzene,
1,1-dichloroethene, vinyl
chloride, trichloroethene
Risks based on concentrations
detected in industrial wells,
not currently used for
drinking water.
Noncarcinogenic Risks -
Hazard Index < 1
No individual chemicals intake
exceeded its RfD
Volatilization and
release of volatile
chemicals from subsurface
with subsequent release
to nearby residents and
businesses
Offsite (residents
businesses)
Cancer risks monitoring wells
range from 2 X 10-2 to
5 X 10-4.
Noncarcinogenic risk Hazard
Index > I for Areas 1 and 3
monitoring wells
Cancer Risk - Ambient Air
1 X 10-6
Arsenic, benzene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
1,1-dichloroethane, vinyl
chloride, trichloroethene,
bis(2-chloroehtyl)ether,
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
No individual chemical's
intake exceeded its RfD.
Trichloroethane, carbontetra-
chloride, benzene
Risks include arsenic
concentrations. Current
groundwater use is limited,..
but no groundwater use
restrictions in place.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Assumed cap does not
limit releases, constant
release, and contains exposure.
Exposures likely to be lower.
No individaul chemical risk
equal to or greater than
1 x 10-6.
Noncarcinogenic risks
Hazard Index < 1
•tf'Pi-
No individual chemical intakes
exceeded its RfD.
Air concentrations based on
conservative screening level
modeling. Exposures likely
to be lower.
-------
Page 3 of 3
•Table 5-12
SUMMARY OF RISKS
G & H LANDFILL SITE
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Risk Characterization
Primary Chemicals of Interest
Comments
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Terrestrial wildlife come
in direct contact with
contaminated surface soil,
sediments, or exposed
waste (i.e., oil seep)
Aquatic organisms come in
contact (bioconcentration,
bioaccumulation) with
chemicals released from
site.
Onsite and Utica-
Rochester
Recreation Area
Clinton River,
Clinton-Kalamazoo
Canal, adjacent
wetlands and ponds
PCB, PNAs, Pesticides
Inorganics and organics
The compounds found in the
terrestrial wildlife have
also been reported in the
site environmental matrices.
A causal link between
compounds found in the
animals and the site cannot
however be proven.
The compounds found in the
aquatic biota have also been
reported in the site
environmental matrices. A
causal link between compounds
found in the animals and the
site cannot however be,proven.
t\ \ f - ' f.-' . ,i 1 *'( 1 '
' ' • ' '. :
.-C": .'
-------
7 ;-o V/HI v 5. >i ". ::- '7 .".• AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
TO"? '?;: n "•'.
•.:i< in Direct- iContact,>with surface soil
JSiU-.O ,f/ l;/b!>"!, 7y -...'
• Direct contact with sediments in the Oil Seep Area
• An accidental exposure to the oil seep water (i.e., falling
in)
• A residential use of groundwater
The following exposure pathways were determined to potentially exist:
exposures to recreational users of the Clinton River and the Clinton-
Kalamazoo Canal, and exposure of people who consume terrestrial or
aquatic wildlife. However, the associated human exposures could not be
estimated.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The baseline environmental evaluation is presented in Appendix E; a
summary is presented here.
Organic and inorganic substances detected in fish and crayfish may have
been from the G&H Landfill site. The mammals sampled have home
ranges that include the site but also extend beyond the site boundaries.
For these reasons, the presence of organic and inorganic substances in the
animal life near the G&H Landfill cannot be directly linked to the site as a
primary source. However, the potential for environmental exposure exists,
especially through exposure to contaminated soil, groundwater seeps, and
the resulting runoff of contaminated surface water to adjacent ponds,
wetlands, the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal, and the Clinton River. Depending
on the actual volume of groundwater discharge and dilution in the surface
5-18
-------
AGENCY REVIEW DRAFT
waters adjacent to the site, there may be a potential for aquatic impacts
from the discharge of groundwater and leachater'since^a' number of site-
related contaminants that presently occur in the groundwater exceed
aquatic life criteria. .. ; . law i
GLT959/005.50
'. 'ic i-Ait: i£t.Tatjb;
:::•.•' .'Vh '•/.'. 13 SC c.V,: ".OqY.t J_jf • vOiiO'' ...ff;
• , Vi rjy?.,.' lsr:oi.i ,^Tyt»'i o* itra^uix
itnbnr.J H^/P r?r:.: •I; i:i>.-?
ud sri? s^i ti;:-.-:on; .^.rri •:••:'.;
' n
5-19
-------
Chapter 6
REFERENCES
CH2M HILL. Interim RI Report. 1987.
Dorr and Eschman. Geology of Michigan. University of Michigan Press. 1970.
V - '•••'. ' '.< '\ :-..•:••••
Jenkins, C. Alternate Concentration Limits for Dioxin Groundwater
Contamination at Wood Preserving Sites. EPA memorandum dated
May 8, 1986, to Bob Stewart. [Copied and distributed by Eileen Claussen,
Characterization and Assessment Division (WH 562B), Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, in a memo titled "Technical Review Memorandum
Concerning Analytical Strategies to Characterize Exposure Scenarios at Wood
Preserving Sites" dated July 21, 1986.]
Todd, D.K. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley & Sons. 1980.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical, Physical, and Biological
Properties of Compounds Present at Hazardous Waste Sites. Prepared by
Clement Associates, Inc., Arlington, Virginia. 1985.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual. EPA 540/1-86-060. October 1986.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Determining Soil Response Action
Levels Based on Potential Contaminant Migration to Groundwater: A
Compendium of Examples. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
EPA/540/2-89/057. 1989.
Verschueren, K. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals.
Second edition, Van Nostgrand Reinhold Company. 1983.
Chapter 5
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988c). Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA—Interim Final.
OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. October 1988.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. January 1985. Stream
Classification for the Little Menomonee River, Menomonee Watershed by
W. Wawrzyn.
Appendix B
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of the Task Group
on Reference Man. International Commission on Radiological Protection
Publication No. 23, e. W.S. Snyder. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1974.
Johnson. Personal communication TO BE COMPLETED
-------
McKone,
Tap Wa&rr;
Technology:'
NOAA 1982 TO BE COMPLETED .. . ._
? «r.-r/..-: ::>.> -.o1. y:;'.hJii-.:O . :. .-• .3 . J
National' Wedther ''Sem^rlBetfbit1 Metropolitan Airport TO BE COMPLETED^
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980). Ambient Water Quality Criteria .T
f T\ tj- J» j .tj»TI i0 1/7 1 A<^»>*3 rV-/J-)r- /li^l/^ i • ' 4 rtrt/\ . "*" • /
/or Polycyghc.Arqinatic ff&rojaaffeons. 1980. ... ^
U. S. Envirohmental fPfotectidnTA^ency (1984a). Health Assessment Document '-'
for Inorganic Arsenic: Final Report. EPA-600/8-83-021F, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. March 1984. , T
»•,'>•;..• N'\ -:-.V .l;.u ,'-...) \~A--V 't\V\^.';\^ . J
U. S. Environmental Pfdte'cfibn Agency (1984b). Health Effects Assessment f™
Pofycyclic Aromaflc Hydrocarbons JPAH's). EPA/540/1-86/013, Office of Re! ch ,
j t< >--.Vvi^ViiV>rr :J '" November 20; 1985. '" -
p^;..; ' *-.'"•}{"*• • ,>,-- - r ,, O
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986b). Guidelines for Mutagenicity
Risk Assessment. Federal Register 51: 34006-25. September 24, 1986. ,,.,,
.'• : '_ .". _ ' '/:: !:i /*
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986c). Guidelines for the Health .Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Federal Register 51: 34014-41. //u.-sq
Septemb%.;24, ^^^^.^ . Iic, . - :: :. A;
U. SI Envirohmentarplrotectibri Agency (1986d). Guidelines for Carcinogen'Risk/,
Assessment. Federal Register 51: 33992-34013. September 24, 1986.
U.' S/;Environmentaii PfBt^ion^ency (1986e). Superfund Public Health . . '/
Evaluation Manual EPA 154071-86^060. October 1986. '
U. S.'...^^^'^^^.^^^^^''^^^ (1986f). Development of Advisory Levels ;;'
/or Pbfychlorihated Eiiphenyls '(PCBs) Cleanup. U. S. EPA Exposure" Assessment ''".-.,'
Group, EPA/600/6-86/002, May 1986.
U. S. Envirpnmehtal, ^ protection ,Xgehcy (1988a). Superfund Exposure Assessment ..~
Manual. OS'WER Directive ;9:285:5-l, Office of Emergency and Remedial .'/.:'£
Response. April 1988. ^'H-.-*
-------
U. Sj.,, Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas to Assistant Administrators. Subject:
the Carcinogenicity Risk Associated with the Ing^stioii'Jof llnQrg^^cj' Ar-senip.1,'y \- r>4
June 21, 1988. °'' : "*" - , - - ' -, ^ = -
G~""'-^ reIMO^' 3Lf; OT '>£-f /• •'• <•'» "
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988c). 'Guidance for Conducting^ *'" '""'"
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CEftC^A—Interim Final. . -.
OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, October 1988. J '':u^a •Jjr/li'6 -^Jf^// i.-i.-t,;.^
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (198^}^a^eta^^R^'l^^T:^tJ6^ .; .t."'
System. Background Information. U. S. EPA Integrated Rftk* InF6rniatibn; Jv5' ' '
System Data Base, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio. -
1989. f'"3^'-/,"^:^-' :'::.^::-^:': ::•
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ingestion Rates. OSWER Directive 9850.4. January 27,. 1989., , . - -
d v: ,-j--r?r i-oS^ST.'/iS is:-nyrnrrt.-j-vr.;. .c . J
US. Environmental Protection Agency (1989c)::
Final Report. EPA/600/8-89/043, Office of Health ahdrEiivironmerita1rC40 ^ ' '^
Assessment. March 1989.
""
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989d).' r:R>i ^^e^eW^MaM^V^F^X'
Superfund-Human Health Evaluation Manual. !107">:'J"I"
Directive 9285.701A December 1989.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989e). ^ '^^^ll^^Sti^ ^''^ ~
Summary Tables - Third Quarter FY 1989. OE^t'WQO(.6^b3-p9^); dfffcfe of " ~
Research and Development. 1989. .^,iuiL:/o. ..... ,ir KJS?.*
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
System. Chemical Files. U. S. EPA Integrated msk'Infdmatiori 'System D'aia ''Q-f
Base, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1989. ^ ,
' r ',.- r'OiK.'tjJr^. ;i'Jufmnorr/~'::: <' U
^ ' -:™"> ••'••"*'• : if ;
WiUiams. Personal communication TO BE
- '°'^A no:iot).i(..nci isjn'jrnrifi'irvrrS' .2 .U
An- r-
Appendix C ... 4 ., . . . ,r -. ..
iv; lf.oirr-'tij,J t:.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986a). Guidehnes for°itrie Healtri7rRisk'5':
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Federal Register 51:. .34014=41. September 24, . .
' ''''• ' '•. 3i/-. r;or:;fno';: -i j.^nan •;;:.-;;•;-.:: ..-:...,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986c\^pevelopmeflt of Advisory Levels
for Pofychlprinaied Biphenyls (PCBs) Cleanup. Llv;S. 'JEPA Expo^fif'Assesstiienr ,
Group,''EPA/600/6-86/002. May 1986. r ^^"^ f:jv;!-';X> ?'™w!', r.y/-;;'"'.,:--;
U. S. Enyirqnmental Protection Agency (1988). Superfund Exposure Assessment- ..
Manual. OSWER Directive 9285.5-1, Office of:Em4r|;4A%Jahdr^!^edial d ^ if
Response. April 1988. c. .^... ^ -31; /- :/• c .„• >.•„;, ..j
r r -'VL». I-TI-. •- . - ••••:.,-• :
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund—^-Human Health Evaluation Manual Pan A. Interim Final. OSWER
Directive 9285.701A. December '
GLT959/024.50
------- |