UriM Srate*
Environmerai Protenior
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial'Response
EPA/ROOR02-9
-------
50372-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. RBKMTNCX i
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02- 90/107
4. TMoondaubM*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Syosset Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action
7. AutMTW
9. Porfoimlna OrooinUrton NMO ond Addraoi
12. SpofMQnnQ OrQflrazBoofl NMIH MO AoorKfM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
•V IvCtplWw • ACQVMflMffl MO.
09/27/90
fc
ia Pro|oclTook/Work UnH Ho.
11. Com™c«C) or O«««r, «4a
(C)
(0)
IX Typo of Report t Ported Covorad
800/000
14.
IS. aupptamofitiry NOIM
16. AteMct (LMt: 200 wordo)
The 35-acre Syosset Landfill site is a closed municipal landfill in Syosset, Oyster
Bay, New York. Surrounding land use is high-density residential and industrial. The
site overlies a sole-source aquifer, and eight public supply wells are located within 3
miles of the site. From 1933 to 1975, commercial, industrial, residential, demolition,
and agricultural wastes, sludge, and ash were disposed of in the onsite landfill.
Typical wastes included heavy metals, solvents, organics, oils, sludges, and metal
hydroxides. The county closed the landfill in 1975 because of suspected ground water
contamination. Subsequent studies have confirmed ground water contamination beneath
and downgradient of the site resulting from landfill leachate. This Record of Decision
(ROD) addresses source control at the site. A subsequent ROD will address onsite
ground water contamination. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are
VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene; other organics; and metals including
arsenic.
The selected remedial action for this site includes placing a geosynthetic membrane cap
over the landfill area; installing a passive gas venting system, in addition to the
(See Attached Page)
17. Do
NY
Record of Decision - Syosset Landfill,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: soil
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene), organics, metals (arsenic)
e. CO6A7I FMd/Oraiv
1*. aMwttyClM«(TM*ltoport)
None
20. Socutty Ctan (TM* Pig*)
None
21. No.olP*gw
108
22. Ptk»
(So* AM9-ZJt.1l)
SM *M*uctfen* on fltww**
rOHM 271 (4-7
(Formoriy HTO-*)
-------
EPA/RGD/RG2-90/107
Syosset Landfi.i.l, NY
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
venting system installed during the 1975 landfill closure; maintaining the cap and
venting system; conducting air and ground water monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls including land use restrictions, and site access restrictions
including fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$26,200,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $222,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS• Not applicable.
-------
DECLARATION FOR RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Syosset Landfill Site
Town of Oyster Bay
Nassau County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for Operable Unit One
("OU 1") of the Syosset Landfill (the "Landfill") located in the Town of Oyster Bay,
Nassau County, New York, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 ("SARA") and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan ("NCP"). This decision document summarizes the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for this Site.
The New York Stare Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") concurs
with the selected remedy. A letter of concurrence from NYSDEC is appended to this
document.
The information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the
administrative record for this Site.
ASSESSVENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision ("ROD"), may-
present an imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The OU 1 remedy for the Landfill is a source control remedy. It consists of covering
the Landfill with a geosynthetic membrane cap and undertaking other actions
consistent with New York State landfill closure requirements. These activities
constitute the first Operable Unit at this Site; the second Operable Unit will address
the possible migration of contaminants from the Landfill property.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
-------
ROD PACT SHEET
SITE
Name: syosset Landfill Superfund Site
Location: Nassau County, Syosset, N.Y.
MRS Score: 54.27
NPL Rank: 613
ROD
Date signed: 9/27/90
Remedy: Implementing New York State closure
requirements specified in 6 NYCRR Part 360,
Solid Waste Management Facilities
Regulations, which includes constructing a
geosynthetic membrane can on the top surface
of the Landfill;
Capital Cost: $24.1 million
O&M/Year: $222,000
Present Worth Cost: $26.2 million
LEAD
Potentially Responsible Town of Oyster Bay
Party (PRP):
Primary contact: Sherrel D. Henry, (212) 264-8675
Main PRP: Town of Oyster Bay
PRP contact: Richard Lenz, (516)921-7347 X5655
WASTE
Type: commercial, industrial, residential,
demolition, and agricultural wastes, as
well as sludge material and ash.
Medium: air, soil
Origin: • Dumping
Est. Quantity: Three million cubic yards
-------
£a&e
TABLE 2. CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
(8 PAGES)
TABLE 3. CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED INORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES (6 PAGES)
TABLE 4. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM
SOIL BORINGS DURING LANDFILL DIMENSION STUDY (3 PAGES)
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM
SOIL BORINGS DURING LANDFILL GROUNDWATER STUDY (7 PAGES)
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF GAS WELL MONITORING DATA (8 PAGES)
TABLE 7. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN GAS SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM
SELECTED GAS MONITORING WELLS (5 PAGES)
TABLE 8. INDICATOR CHEMICALS AND THEIR CONCENTRATIONS
TABLE 9. POTENTLY MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND EXPOSURE ROUTES
TABLE 10. CALCULATION OF NONCARCINOGENIC SUBCHRONIC HAZARD
INDEX (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
TABLE '.OB. CALCULATION Or CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
TABLE :OC. CALCULATION OF NONCARCINOGENIC SUBCHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
(.ADULTS)
TABLE MO CALCULATION OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX (ADULTS)
TABLE :-.-.. PJSK ESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
TABLE :iB. RISK ESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS (ADULTS)
TABLE -2. FEDERAL ARAR'S AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
TA3LE 13. NEW YORK STATE ARAR'S AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
TABLE 14. COST ANALYSIS FOR CAPPING ALTERNATIVES (3 PAGES)
-------
Implementing New York Srate landfUJ closure requirements as specified
in 6 NYCRR Parr 360, Solid Waste Management Facilities Regulations,
which includes construction of a geosynthetic membrane cap on the top
surface of the landfill;
Providing long-term operation and maintenance of the Landfill cap,
including routine inspection and repair;
• Providing long-term air and groundwater quality monitoring in
accordance with the New York State landfill closure requirements;
• Monitoring and maintaining the passive gas venting system installed
under a previously implemented response action, including routine
inspection and repair;
Installing an additional passive gas venting system, designed so that ir
can easily be convened to an active system should conversion become a
necessary pan of the remedy in the future;
• Maintaining the existing boundary fence around the perimeter of the
Landfill property to continue to restrict access to the Landfill;
• Placing institutional controls on the Landfill property to restrict future
use of the Landfill in order to ensure the integrity of the cap;
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies
with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for this site. However, because treatment of the principal threats at the
site was nor found to be practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. As this remedy will
result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review
will be conducted within five years after commencement of the remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment.
Consraniine Sidamon-Eristoff Date
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE 2. CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
(8 PAGES)
TABLE 3. CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED INORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES (6 PAGES)
TABLE 4. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM
SOIL BORINGS DURING LANDFILL DIMENSION STUDY (3 PAGES)
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM
SOIL BORINGS DURING LANDFILL GROUNDWATER STUDY (7 PAGES)
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF GAS WELL MONITORING DATA (8 PAGES)
TABLE 7. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN GAS SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM
SELECTED GAS MONITORING WELLS (5 PAGES)
TABLE 8. INDICATOR CHEMICALS AND THEIR CONCENTRATIONS
TABLE 9. POTENTIAL MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND EXPOSURE ROUTES
TABLE 10. CALCULATION OF NONCARCINOGENIC SUBCHRONIC HAZARD
INDEX (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
TABLE 103. CALCULATION OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
TABLE IOC. CALCULATION OF NONCARCINOGENIC SUBCHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
(ADULTS)
TABLE 10D. CALCULATION OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX (ADULTS)
TABLE 11 A. RISK ESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
TABLE 11B. RISK ESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS (ADULTS)
TABLE 12. FEDERAL ARAR'S AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
TABLE 13. NEW YORK STATE ARAR'S AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
TABLE 14. COST ANALYSIS FOR CAPPING ALTERNATIVES (3 PAGES)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTTVITIES 2
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
VII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 10
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 16
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 22
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 23
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDDC 1- FIGURES 26
FIGURE 1. LANDFILL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2. WELL LOCATIONS AND OTHER FEATURES AT THE LANDFILL
FIGURE 3. LOCATIONS OF LANDFILL GAS MONITORING WELLS
FIGURE 4. ASPHALT COVER- CAP SECTIONS
FIGURE 5. VEGETATIVE COVER- CAP SECTIONS
APPENDIX 2-TABLES 27
TABLE 1. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
(8 PAGES)
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
SYOSSET LANDFILL SUPERFUNO SITE
SYOSSET, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
Page
APPENDIX 3. NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE 28
APPENDIX 4. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 29
PART I. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
PART II. COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSES TO ALL SIGNIFICANT
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
-------
•2-
unconformable on the bedrock surface. There are three unconsolidated geologic
formations underlying the Landfill (the Upper Glacial, Magothy, and Raritan).
However, only two are saturated: the Magothy and the Raritan Formation. The
Upper Glacial Formation is unsaturated in the vicinity of the Landfill. The saturated
portion of the Magothy Formation (Magothy aquifer) is the principal source of water
for public and industrial use; therefore, this is the aquifer of interest.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Landfill is owned by the Town of Oyster Bay (the "Town"), which operated it
from approximately 1933 to 1975. Between 1933 and 1967, no restrictions were
imposed on the types of wastes accepted at the Landfill. Waste types included
commercial, industrial, residential, demolition, and agricultural wastes, as well as,
sludge material and ash. In 1967, with the opening of another landfill to the east of
Syosset in Old Bethpage, the Town stopped using the Landfill for the disposal of its
domestically generated wastes. The Town also directed some industrial generators to
use the Old Bethpage facility, but some industrial wastes continued to be disposed of
at the Landfill until it was closed. The Landfill also accepted scavenger cesspool
waste.
The Landfill was excavated into two cells to a depth of approximately 60 to 90 feet
below land surface, and was then backfilled with garbage. There is also evidence that
buried combustible fill materials were reportedly ignited and allowed to burn in
portions of the Landfill. The Landfill was closed on January 28, 1975 by the Nassau
County Department of Health ("NCDOH") because of a suspected groundwater
pollution problem.
Several large companies have been identified as generators of large quantities of
wastes that were disposed of at the Landfill over a period of years. According to
information in EPA's possession, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics ("Hooker") disposed of
approximately 48 tons of hazardous wastes at the Landfill from 1946 to 1968. The
wastes included heavy metals, solvents, organics, oils and sludges, plasticizers, and
small amounts of polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs"). Hooker was acquired by
Occidental Chemical Corporation in 1982. EPA'S records also indicates that Cerro
disposed of between 700 and 1080 tons annually of industrial sludges at the Landfill
from 1950 to 1975. These sludges contained high concentrations of metals, including
iron, chromium, copper, zinc, lead, cadmium, and nickel. EPA records also indicate
that Columbia Corrugated Container Company disposed of approximately 108,000
gallons of industrial sludges similar in composition to those of Cerro, annually at the
Landfill. In addition, Grumman Aerospace Corporation has reported that it disposed
of 4,889 tons of sludge from its industrial waste treatment plant at the Landfill from
1949 to 1966. This sludge consisted primarily of hydroxides of chromium, aluminum,
-------
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Syosset Landfill Site (the "Site") is located in Nassau County in the Town of
Oyster Bay, Syosset, New York. The Site includes property formerly operated as the
Syosset Landfill (the "Landfill"), and all areas which may have been affected by
contaminants migrating from the Landfill. The Landfill covers approximately 35 acres
and is 50 yards north of the Long Island Expressway. As illustrated in Figure 1, it is
bordered by Miller Place to the southeast, by property formerly occupied by Cerro
Wire and Cable Corporation ("Cerro") to the southwest, and by the Long Island
Railroad to the northwest. A residential area and the South Grove Elementary School
(the "School") border the Landfill to the northeast. The entire Landfill is enclosed by
a six foot high cyclone fence. The Site also includes offices and maintenance facilities
for the Town of Oyster Bay Department of Public Works. This area is located to the
east, immediately adjacent to the Landfill, and occupies approximately 18 acres.
According to the 1980 Census, the population of the Village of Syosset was
approximately 10,392.
Topographically, the Landfill is relatively flat and at similar elevation to the
surrounding area. The Landfill is characterized by a barren landscape with clumps of
trees. Well locations, structures and other features at the Landfill are shown in Figure
2. There are two recharge basins owned by Nassau County which border the Landfill
10 the north and northeast. Both basins collect storm water runoff from the
neighboring residential area for recharge to the underlying groundwater aquifers.
The Landfill is located in a densely populated residential and industrial area. This
area is not known to contain ecologically significant habitat, agricultural land, historic
or landmark sites directly or potentially affected. There are no wetlands on or
adjacer.: to the Landfill. However, a low area on the northerly side of the Landfill
supports the growth of Giant Reed, a common freshwater wetland species. The
occurrence of this species is most likely due to the infrequent ponding caused by
storms.
There are four public supply wells within a 1-mile radius of the Landfill; none of these
wells are currently in service. There are eight public supply wells located within 3
miles of the Landfill in the general direction of groundwater flow (northeast). The
closest are two public supply wells located approximately 2 miles to the northeast of
the Landfill. These wells are screened in a deeper pan of the Magothy aquifer and
are still in service. .
The Landfill is located in Long Island, New York within the glaciated pan of the
Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Landfill is underlain by more than
1,000 feet of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, gravel, and clay which rest
-------
-4-
FV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Syosset Landfill Site are complex.
As a result, EPA and NYSDEC have divided the work into rwo operable units. The
operable units are:
o OU 1: Source control of Landfill property
o OU 2: Study of migration of contaminants from the Landfill property into the
groundwater.
This ROD addresses the First Operable Unit at the Landfill. The three predominant
contaminant transport media to be addressed are soil, air and generation of leachate
that may impact the groundwater. The contaminant transport through groundwater
will be addressed during the Second Operable Unit ROD. Source control management
of the Landfill will address the closure of the portion of the Site which was formerly
operated as the Syosset Landfill proper.
The results of the RI revealed that the groundwater beneath and down-gradient from
the Landf.ll has been contaminated with leachate. The highest concentrations of
leachate parameters (chloride, ammonia, alkalinity, hardness, iron) were found in
down-gradient groundwater monitoring wells. These results suggest the existence of a
plume of leachate-contaminated groundwater emanating from the Landfill. The extent
of this plume as well as the need for mitigation will be delineated in the Second
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation. The remediation of the Site will be complete
only after EPA has selected and implemented remedial actions for both operable units.
V. S-'VN'ARV OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The nature and extent of contamination at the Landfill was investigated during three
phases of the OU 1 RI. These three phases consisted of: Landfill groundwater study,
Landfill dimension study, and sub-surface gas study.
GROUNDWATER
The purpose of the Landfill groundwater study was to characterize the previously
reported impacts to groundwater quality from the Landfill. The scope of work for this
study included drilling and installing seven monitoring wells, collecting groundwater
and soil samples for laboratory analyses, and monitoring water levels Li the
monitoring wells on the Landfill property.
-------
•3-
and iron. It should be noted that the above-mentioned generators are only some of
the generators who are known to have disposed of hazardous substances at the
Landfill. The Town approached EPA in 1986 and expressed an interest in performing
the RJ/FS. Subsequently, EPA mailed general notice letters to nine additional
potentially responsible parties. All potentially responsible panics declined to perform
the RI/FS.
In January, 1983, Environmental Resources Management-Northeast ("ERM") prepared
a report summarizing the results of a study that it performed for NCDOH. The report
concluded that the groundwater underlying and near the Site was being impacted by
Landfill leachate. Heavy metals concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and
lead were detected at le%rels exceeding New York State drinking water standards.
The Site was placed on the Superfund National Priorities List ("NPL") in September
1983. After a series of negotiating sessions between the Town and EPA, the Town
indicated a willingness to perform the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
("RI 75"). for the Site. On June 19, 1986, EPA and the Town entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent, Index No. II CERCLA-60203 (the "Order"). The
Order required the Town to conduct an RJ/FS for the Site with provisions for
performing investigations of contaminant migration away from the Landfill property,
as deemed necessary. Since that time, EPA has separated the cleanup of the Site into
two phases or operable units. The first operable unit addresses the identification and
abatement of the source of Site contamination at the Landfill property. The second
operable urJ: will assess the nature and extent and need for abatement, if any, of
migration of contaminants from the Landfill property into nearby groundwater and
will be addressed at a later date.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI. FS Reports and the Proposed Plan for the first operable unit at the Site were
released to the public in July 1990. These documents were made available at two
information repositories maintained at the Syosset Public Library and the Oyster Bay
Town Hall. The notice of availability for these documents was published in Newsdav
on July 28, 1990. A public comment period was held from July 28, 1990 through
August 28, 1990. Ln addition, a public meeting was held on August 15, 1990 to
present the results of the RI/FS and the preferred alternative as presented in the
Proposed Plan for the Landfill. At this meeting, representatives of the EPA presented
the Proposed Plan regarding remediation of the Site, and later answered questions and
responded to comments concerning such plan and other details related to the RI/FS
reports. Responses to the comments and questions received during the public
comment period, are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is pan of this
ROD.
-------
-6-
selected from the set of samples collected at five foot intervals. Two shallow
monitoring wells were installed in rwo of the four soil borings (B-3 and B-4) and
numbered as W-3 and W-4, respectively.
The results of the VOC analyses for the soil samples collected from the soil borings
are presented in Table 4. VOCs were detected in total concentrations ranging from 19
ppb in B-l (55 feet below land surface) to 180 ppb in B-3 (40 feet below land
surface). VOCs were not detected in samples collected from B-2 (85 feet below land
surface), B-3 (80 feet below land surface and 110 feet below land surface), and B-4
(70 feet below land surface, 100 feet below land surface). In each of these instances,
except for the 80 foot sample from B-3, the samples were collected from the bottom
of the Landfill. Several VOC compounds were detected in approximately the same
concentration range (approximately 0-40 ppb), the summation of which yield the total
VOC values. The exception is the detection of chlorobenzene in B-3 in a concentration
of 180 ppb, which is the highest single concentration for an individual VOC and also
the highest total concentration.
The results for soil samples collected from the well borings drilled during the Landfill
groundwater study are presented in Table 5. Only rwo soil samples collected from the
well borings during this study detected VOCs. Total VOCs were detected in
concentration ranging from 5ppb - 335 ppb.
PC3s were detected in total concentrations of 730 ppb and 380 ppb in Boring B-l (15
and 40 feet below land surface, respectively) and 4,600 ppb, 560 ppb, and 171 ppb in
Bering 3-4 (40, 70, and 100 foot below land surface, respectively).
SUB-SURFACE GAS STUDY
The sub-surf ace gas study was designed and implemented to determine the nature and
extent of Landfill gases. A total of 19 gas monitoring wells were installed at the
locations shown in Figure 3. Five of the 19 gas wells( G-2, G-10, G-17, G-18, and G-
19) penetrated the clean Landfill cover into Landfill material. The remaining 14 gas
wells were positioned very close to the Landfill boundaries. The gas wells were
sampled on a monthly basis with an Organic Vapor Analyzer ("OVA") for the presence
of methane and total volatile organic vapors. In addition, two rounds of gas samples
were collected for laboratory analyses.
The results of the monthly well monitoring programs are summarized in Table 6. As
shown in Table 6, in ten of the wells, Landfill gases were not detected for the
majority of the monitoring period. When gases were detected, they were found in the
low pans per million range. In the remaining nine wells, located along the middle
-------
-5-
Two rounds of groundwarer sampling were conducted ar the Landfill. Filtered and
unfilrered samples were collected for metals. The analytical results for Volatile
Organic Compounds ("VOCs") detected are summarized in Table 1. The
concentrations and distribution of VOCs detected did not suggest a plume or body of
VOC-impacted water attributable to the Landfill.
A number of metals were also detected in groundwater samples. Table 2 provides a
summary of the metals analytical results. Both filtered and unfiltered samples were
collected for metal analyses during the first round of sampling and only filtered
samples were collected for the second round. Some of the unfiltered samples,
exceeded the primary drinking water standards for arsenic and lead, and zinc exceeded
the secondary drinking water standards promulgated pursuant to the Safe Water
Drinking Act 42 U.S.C 300f-300j.
In addition to the organic and metal contaminants detected in groundwater samples, a
number of inorganic compounds were detected above background levels. The group
of compounds include naturally-occurring anions and cations, some of which are
extremely useful in determining landfill leachate impacts to groundwater. Ammonia,
hardness, alkalinity, iron, sodium, potassium, dissolved solids, and chloride have been
employed as indicator parameters for landfill leachate. The analytical results for these
parameters are presented in Table 3. The distribution of leachate indicator parameters
clearly indicates that groundwater is being impacted by landfill leachate, as evidenced
by elevated concentrations of dissolved solids, chloride, ammonia, alkalinity, and
hardness. The relatively higher concentrations of leachate indicator parameters
detected in both shallow and deep down-gradient groundwater monitoring wells
suggest the existence of a plume of leachate-impacted groundwater emanating from
the Landfill in the direction of groundwater flow. However, this will be further
investigated during the second operable unit RI/FS.
LANDFILL DIMENSION STUDY
The principle objective of the Landfill dimension study was to characterize the waste
in the Landfill. A total of four soil borings (B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4) were drilled in the
Landfill area at the locations shown in Figure 2. The locations were selected based
on the result of historical information. Borings B-l and B-2 were drilled through the
Landfill material to penetrate ten feet into native soil, and Borings B-3 and B-4 were
drilled to below the water table (100 - 115 ft below land surface) so that monitoring
wells could be installed.
Samples of Landfill materials and native soil were collected at five foot intervals.
Three samples of the Landfill material were collected for laboratory analysis from each
of the four soil borings to chemically characterize the fill material; these samples were
-------
-8-
Exposure Assessment
EPA's LA identified several potential exposure pathways by which the public may be
exposed to contaminant releases from the Landfill. These pathways and the
populations potentially affected are shown in Table 9. The three potential exposure
routes identified in the EA include: 1) exposures to organic compounds and metals
from ingestion of or contact with contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the
Site; 2) inhalation exposures to volatile organic compounds emitted from
contaminated soils; and 3) inhalation exposures to volatile organic compounds
released from contaminated groundwater during showering. The potentially exposed
populations include workers at the Town of Oyster Bay Department of Public Works,
located on the southern margin of the Landfill; children, faculty, and staff at the
School: and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Toxicity Assessment
The EA assessed the risks associated with exposures to carcinogenic (cancer causing)
and noncarcinogenic indicator chemicals.
Noncardnogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index ("HI") approach, based on a
comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake (Reference
Doses). Reference doses ("RfDs") have been developed by EPA for indicating the
potential for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day,
are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe over a
lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular media. The HI is obtained by adding the hazard
quotients for all compounds across all media. A HI greater than 1 indicates that
potential exists for non-carcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related
exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media. The RfDs and His for the indicator chemicals at the Landfill are presented in
Tables 10 A-D.
The HI for non-carcinogenic effects from the Landfill is less than one for adults and
for chronic exposures to contaminated groundwater for children. However, the
subchronic HI for children is greater than one (2.61) due to ingestion of
groundwater contaminated with arsenic. This value comes mostly from ingestion of
arsenic, and is above the EPA guidance level of one.
-------
•9-
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer potency factors developed
by the EPA for the indicator compounds. Cancer potency factors ("CPFs") have been
developed by EPA's Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)', are multiplied by the
estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound
at tha: intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the
risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of the
risk highly unlikely. The CPFs for the indicator chemicals and their corresponding
cancer risk levels are presented in Tables 11A and 11B.
Human Health Risk Characterization
For known or suspected carcinogens, the USEPA considers excess upper bound
individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X 10* to 1 X 10* to be acceptable with
10' being the point of departure. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of developing cancer as
a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific
exposure conditions at the site. The cumulative upper bound risk for adults for all
carcinogens at the Landfill is 4.0 X 105. The cumulative upper bound risk for children
for all carcinogens at the Landfill is 3.0 X 10s. Hence, the risks for carcinogens at the
Landfill fall within the acceptable EPA risk range of 10" to 106. However, EPA's
preference is to select remedies that are at the more protective end of the risk range.
Therefore, EPA has determined that the target risk for the Landfill should be on the
order of 1 X 10% given the size and proximity of potentially exposed neighboring
populations to the Landfill and the likelihood of exposures. Therefore, Landfill
remediation will be performed.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such
assessments, are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main
sources of uncertainty include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- lexicological data
-------
-10-
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven
distribution of chemicals in the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant
uncertainty as to the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis
uncertainty can stem from several sources including the errors inherent in the
analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled. Uncertainties in
the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an individual would
actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over.which
such exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of
the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure. In the EA for the Syosset Landfill
Site, contact with arsenic-contaminated groundwater was assumed to occur from a
public water supply weD located approximately 1000 feet from the Landfill (N-4133).
Although, this well was abandoned and sealed in 1982, so that it can no longer be
used, the assumption was made to utilize this well in the EA to determine the effect
that a future well might have if it were located at a similar distance down gradient of
the Landfill. This is a conservative assumption since the NYSDEC strictly regulates the
placement of groundwater supply wells on Long Island. Uncertainties in toxicological
data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low doses
of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of
chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative assumptions
concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the
EA provides upper bound estimates of the risks to populations near the Landfill, and is
highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the Landfill.
Risk Summary
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Landfill, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The goal of the RA is to prevent, reduce, or control the contaminants that may be
leaving the Landfill and entering the groundwater and air. Technically applicable
technologies were identified in the FS Report. In general, treatment or removal
alternatives that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume are preferred. However, it has
been estimated that a total of three million cubic yards of waste were landfilled at the
35- acre Landfill. These wastes were placed at depths to 90 feet below ground
surface. If the waste is removed, clean fill material would have to be brought in to
bring the Landfill to existing ground surface elevations. The cost for removal,
disposal, and filling operations for this Landfill would be approximately 775 million
dollars. The total cost for removal, treatment, and filling operations would be in the
order of one billion dollars. Partial ("hot spot") removal or treatment would be a
-------
•11-
more feasible option. However, ir is not appropriate at the Landfill, because no
discrete areas, contaminated by high levels of an identifiable waste type which
represented a principal threat to public health or the environment, were located.
Results from the OU 1 RJ observed low concentration contaminants dispersed
throughout the Landfill, Removal and disposal technologies were eliminated in the
screening process due to excessive cost and impracticability.
The First Operable Unit FS focused on the no-action alternative and three landfill
closure alternatives for detailed evaluation. The Landfill closure alternatives consisted
of three containment options. Estimated costs and implementation times are
summarized here from the FS. It should be noted that the implementation periods
include a component for the design of the intended remedial action.
ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered at every site. Under
this alternative, the Landfill would be retained in its current condition. No
remediation measures would be implemented. However, long-term monitoring of the
groundwater and subsurface gas at the Landfill would be necessary to monitor
contaminant migration. Monitoring can be implemented by using previously-installed
gas and ground-water monitoring wells. Costs incurred for this alternative would be
lirrjted to landfill maintenance and monitoring costs.
No capiial cost would be required to implement this alternative. The present worth
value for the estimated annual maintenance and monitoring cost of the no-action
alternative is approximately one million dollars per year. There would be no change
in the level of protection of public health.
Source Control Measures:
Containment of potentially contaminated soil and waste at the Landfill involves the
placement of an impermeable cover over the existing fill material. Containment
technologies are advantageous since they allow the waste materials to remain in place
while the cover system minimizes future exposure pathways. Capping systems have
been used for many years during landfill closure operations and have proven to be an
effective and reliable means of protecting human health and the environment. The
cap system would be designed and constructed to minimize erosion of the cover, and
provide long-term minimization of migration of liquids through the underlying
contaminated soils.
-------
-12-
All of the capping systems that were evaluated consist of a bottom layer of permeable
gas venting material, overlain by a low permeability barrier layer covered by a barrier
protection layer.
The permeable gas venting layer must have provisions for a gas venting and collection
system to release any landfill gases trapped under the cap to prevent gas migration
and cap degradation. The gas control system must be designed to prevent gas
migration away from the Landfill; prevent the accumulation of gas in concentrations
greater than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit for gases in structures on or off
the Landfill property; and control objectionable odors from gas emission.
The required low permeability barrier may consist either of a layer of low permeability-
soil or a geosynthetic membrane.
The barrier protection layer would consist of bituminous asphalt concrete layer where
future land use by the Town of Oyster Bay Department of Public Works is anticipated.
Anticipated uses for the Landfill include utilizing a portion of the Landfill for highway
yard operations, materials storage, composing, vehicle parking or construction of a
recycling facility. Any areas on the Landfill property whose anticipated use does not
require an asphalt surface will utilize the standard vegetative cover material specified
in NYCRR Pan 360.
Disadvantages of capping include the concern of waste material remaining in place,
the potential for the cap to leak and generate additional leachate unless properly
maintained, and the magnitude of grading required to minimize standing water
because the landfill is relatively flat. Leakage of the cap is a potential concern
because of the potential for future leachate generation. To reduce the risk of leaks
developing in the system over time, which would have an impact on the groundwater,
long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) would be required.
ALTERNATIVE 2A: NEW YORK STATE PART 360 REGULATIONS-LOW
PERMEABILITY SOIL CAP
Capital cost: $30.3 million
Annual Operation and Maintenance: $280,000
Estimated Present Worth: $32.9 million
Time to Implement the Remedial Action: 36 months
Alternative 2A consists of a low permeability soil cap (clay) for Landfill closure which
complies with 6 NYCRR Pan 360. The minimum cap section utilizing asphalt for the
barrier protection layer, where future land use for the Town's Department of Public
Works is anticipated, is shown in Figure 4. The minimum cap section utilizing
-------
•13-
vegetative cover, where future land use is not anticipated is shown in Figure 5, and
consists of the following layers:
• 24 inches barrier protection layer
- 3 inches asphalt top course or - 6 inches vegetated top soil
• 8 inches asphalt base course or - 18 inches silty sand or other
suitable soil cover
- 13 inches subbase course
• 18 inches of low permeability soil layer (permeability 1 x 107 cm/sec)
2 layers of geosynthetic filter fabric
• 12 inches of gas venting layer (permeability 1 x 103 cm/sec)
• clean soil fill of varying thickness to construct a cap system foundation with a
minimum 4.0 percent slope
• gas riser vents extending from within the refuse material to 3 feet above the
final ground surface elevation (minimum of one gas riser vent per acre); and
• crushed stone backfill around gas venting risers.
ALTERNATIVE 2B: NEW YORK STATE PART 360 REGULATIONS - GEOSYNTHETIC
MEMBRANE CAP
Capital cos:: $24.1 million
Annual Operation and Maintenance: $222,000
Estimated Present Worth: $26.2 million
Time to Implement the Remedial Action: 30 months
Alternative 2B consists of a geosynthetic membrane cap for landfill closure which
complies with 6 NYCRR Pan 360. The minimum cap section utilizing asphalt for the
barrier protection layer, where future land use for the Town's Department of Public
Works is anticipated, is shown in Figure 4. The minimum cap section utilizing a
vegetative cover, where future land use is not anticipated, is shown in Figure 5, and
consists of the following layers:
-------
•14-
• 24 inch barrier protection layer which is made up of:
- 3 inches asphalt top course or • 6 inches vegetated top soil
- 8 inches asphalt base course or - 18 inches silry sand or other
suitable soil cover
- 13 inches subbase course
geosynthetic membrane (40 MIL with permeability 1 x 10'2 cm/sec);
• 3 layers of geosynthetic filter fabric;
• 12 inches of gas venting layer (permeability 1 x 103 cm/sec);
• clean soil fill of varying thickness to construct a cap system foundation with a
minimum 4.0 percent slope;
gas riser vents extending from within the refuse material to 3 ft above the final
ground surface elevation (minimum of one gas riser vent per acre); and
• crushed stone backfill around gas venting risers.
Alternative 2B is similar to Alternative 2A except for the use of geosynthetic
membrane which replaces the low permeability soil (clay) in Alternative 2A.
Alternative 2B also has 3 layers of geosynthetic filter fabric instead of 2.
ALTERNATIVE 2C: LANDFILL CLOSURE FOR MUNICIPAL LANDFTT T.q USING A LOW
PERMEABILITY ASPHALT CAP
Capital cost: S 21.3 million
Annual Operation and Maintenance: $ 212,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 23.3 million
Time to Implement the Remedial Action: 24 months
Alternative 2C consists of a low permeability asphalt cap that will meet the 6 NYCRR
Pan 360 regulations. The minimum cap section utilizing asphalt for the barrier
protection layer, where future land use for the Town's Department of Public Works is
anticipated, is shown in Figure 4. The minimum cap section utilizing a vegetative
cover, where future land use is not anticipated, is shown in Figure 5, and consists of
the following layers:
-------
-15-
3 inches impermeable asphalt (permeability 1.2 x 10" cm/sec) placed
in two 1-1/2 inch lifts;
« 8 inches aggregated base course;
• 13 inches subbase course (gas venting layer);
• geosynthetic filter fabric;
• clean soil fill of varying thickness to construct a cap system foundation
with a minimum 4.0 percent slope;
• gas riser vents extending from within the refuse material to 3 ft above
the final ground surface elevation (minimum of one gas riser vent per
acre); and
• crushed stone backfill around gas venting risers.
Additional components of the remedial action common to all of the Capping
Alternatives
All of the capping alternatives, consistent with NYSDEC closure requirements, would
require post-closure operation and maintenance to operate and maintain the vegetative
and asphalt covers, drainage structures and gas venting systems. In addition, a gas,
air? and groundwater monitoring program would be required. Institutional controls
would be implemented in Alternative 2A, 2B and 2C as well.
Current New York State landfill closure regulations require the installation of a passive
gas venting system comprised of at least one gas vent riser per acre, to minimize
landfill gas build up within the fill. If levels of VOCs or methane in landfill gases are
expected to be high, then an active system would be appropriate.
In general, methane gas levels measured at this Landfill during the RI were generally
low with the exception of one area in the southwestern portion of the Landfill. Levels
of VOCs detected were lower than applicable ARAR'; (Maximum Contaminant Levels)
with the exception of vinyl chloride which was measured slightly above the ARAR's
during one of the sampling rounds. Considering that the levels of VOCs measured in
Landfill soil and ground- water samples were also equal to or below ARAR's, it is
likely that the higher reading measure during that one gas sampling round is not
representative of Landfill conditions. Therefore, based on the Landfill characteristics,
it is anticipated that a passive gas venting system would be the appropriate method
for gas control. However, the passive gas system will be monitored and should levels
-------
-16-
of VOCs be detected in excess of ARAR's emission standards, the passive system will
be designed so that it can easily be converted to an active system. After the
installation of the final cap and venting system, two quarterly rounds of sampling of
the gas vents for methane and non-methane volatile organic compounds, will be
conducted. The sampling results will be utilized to make a determination as to
whether conversion to an active system and/or treatment of gas is necessary.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), a detailed analysis of each
alternative is required. The purpose of the detailed analysis is to objectively assess
the alternatives with respect to nine evaluation criteria that encompass statutory
requirements and include other gauges of the overall feasibility and acceptability of
remedial alternatives. This analysis is comprised of an individual assessment of the
alternatives against each criterion and a comparative analysis designed to determine
the relative performance of the alternatives and identify major trade-offs, that is,
relative advantages and disadvantages, among them.
The nine evaluation criteria against which the alternatives are evaluated are as
follows:
Threshold Criteria - The first two criteria must be satisfied in order for an alternative
to be eligible for selection.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks
posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) is used to determine whether each alternative will meet all of
its Federal and State ARARs. When an ARAR is not met, the detailed
analysis should discuss whether one of the six statutory waivers is
appropriate.
Primary Balancing Criteria - The next five "primary balancing criteria" are to be used
to weigh major trade-offs among the different hazardous waste management strategies.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence focuses on any residual risk
remaining at the Site after the completion of the remedial action. This
analysis includes consideration of the degree of threat posed by the
hazardous substances remaining at the Site and the adequacy of any
-------
•17-
controls (for example, engineering and institutional) used to manage the
hazardous substances remaining at the Site.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment is the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a particular
remedy may employ.
5. Short-term Effectiveness addresses the effects of the alternative during
the construction and implementation phase until the remedial response
objectives are met.
6. Implementabiliry addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing an alternative and the availability of various services and
materials required during its implementation.
7. Cost includes estimated capital, and operation and maintenance costs,
both translated to a present-worth basis. The detailed analysis evaluates
and compares the cost of the respective alternatives, but draws no
conclusions as to the cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. Cost-
effectiveness is determined in the remedy selection phase, when cost is
considered along with the other balancing criteria.
Modifvir.g Criteria - The final two criteria are regarded as "modifying criteria," and are
to be taken into account after the above criteria have been evaluated. They are
generally to be focused upon after public comment is received.
8. State Acceptance reflects the statutory requirement to provide for
substantial and meaningful State involvement.
9. Community Acceptance refers to the community's comments on the
remedial alternatives under consideration, along with the Proposed Plan.
Comments received during the public comment period, and the EPA's
responses to those comments, are summarized in the Responsiveness
Summary which is a part of this ROD.
The following is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
-------
•18-
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Each of the closure alternatives would provide similar protection in regards to
subsurface gas, since similar gas control systems are used for each alternative.
Installation of any of the multi-layer impermeable caps would provide overall
protection by effectively preventing public exposure to the Landfill materials.
The three capping alternatives would prevent infiltration of precipitation into
the Landfill thereby minimizing leachate production which could affect
groundwater.
2. Compliance With ARARs
The ARARs are separated into three categories: chemical-specific, action-
specific, and location specific. Both Federal and State ARAR's were evaluated
with respect to their applicability to the first operable unit remediation
activities at the Landfill, and are listed in Tables 12 and 13, respectively.
All of the landfill closure alternatives will comply with New York State air
quality guidelines and New York State requirements for subsurface gas control.
However, monitoring of the gas control systems will be required to ensure
compliance with New York State ambient air quality guidelines. Alternatives
2A and 23 would meet and exceed the New York State requirements for closure
of solid waste landfills. Although Alternative 2C is also consistent with .the
State landfill closure regulations, NYSDEC may require a longer review process
prior to approval, because the State's closure regulations do not specifically
authorize the proposed capping material specified in Alternative 2C.
Since the Landfill ceased operations in January 1975, prior to the effective date
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") Subtitle C regulations
(November 19, 1980), and the remedy does not involve the disposal of RCRA-
regulated waste, the RCRA Subtitle C closure standards are not applicable.
However, information available indicates that hazardous substances disposed of
at the Landfill may be similar to RCRA wastes. In addition, the purpose of
some of the RCRA closure requirements is similar to the purpose of this
CERCLA action. For these and other reasons, certain of the RCRA Subtitle C
closure requirements, although not applicable, are relevant and appropriate for
the remedial action at this Landfill.
The closure alternatives evaluated will comply with all provisions of the RCRA
hazardous waste landfill closure regulations which are relevant and appropriate
to the Landfill; specifically, 40 CFR Pan 264, Subpart N, Sections 264.303 and
264.310, as well as the NYS Pan 360 regulations for closure.
-------
•19-
Due to the current limited threat for direct contact with the Landfill wastes, the
appropriate closure regulations include the New York State closure requirements
specified in 6 NYCRR Pan 360, Solid Waste Management Facilities Regulations.
This type of closure, which incorporates solid waste and hazardous waste
regulatory requirements, is often called "alternate landfill closure".
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) preclude the placement of restricted
RCRA hazardous waste into a land disposal unit. For the LDRs to be applicable
to a CERCLA response, the action must constitute placement of a restricted
RCRA hazardous waste. Because the waste is being capped in place, LDRs do
nor apply.
3. Long-term FJfectiveness
Landfill capping is considered a reliable option for low level contaminants and
if properly installed, a cap system is expected to continue to provide a high
level of protection. Each of the cap alternatives will be equally effective in
achieving their objective of eliminating contact with Landfill soil and reducing
the risk of contaminant migration as a result of leachate generated by.surface
precipitation.
However, alternative 2B is the most effective cover system for minimizing
leachate production since its geosynthetic barrier and asphalt cover provides an
initial efficiency of 99.43 percent. Alternative 2A has an intermediate
effectiveness in reducing leachate generation ( total cap efficiency = 99.04
percent), while Alternative 2C will be least effective (cap efficiency = 91.40
percent).
Alternative 2A provides minimal potential for cap failure since the low
permeability clay has self-sealing properties which minimize failure caused by
freezing and Landfill settlement. Differential settling of the Landfill wastes with
subsequent detrimental effects on any cover system installed would be expected.
Alternative 2B has an intermediate potential for failure both during and after
construction due to punctures and tears. Alternative 2C maintains the greatest
potential for failure due to freezing and cracking, however, since the capping
material is at the surface, cracks can be easily identified and repaired quickly.
Unlike alternatives 2A and 2C, the useful life of geosynthetic membranes used
in Alternative 2B is unknown and the membrane may have to be replaced
sometime in the future.
In areas where vegetative cover will be utilized, frost action can damage the
-------
-20-
barrier layer and reduce its effectiveness. Alternative 2A has the greatest
potential for frost damage because it is not protected by additional cover or a
geosynthetic membrane. Alternative 2B should be the least affected by frost
because it includes geosynthetic materials.
4. Reduction of Toxiciry, Mobility, or Volume
None of the alternatives utilize treatment of waste to reduce Toxiciry, Mobility,
or Volume. However, all of the capping alternatives would reduce the volume
of leachate being generated in the Landfill by preventing infiltration of
rainwater into the waste.
5. Short-term Effectiveness
There are slight differences in short-term effectiveness between the closure
alternatives. Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C have minor short-term effects on the
surrounding community, including increased vehicular traffic, a slight increase
in noise level from construction equipment, and fugitive dust emissions.
Measures would be taken to minimize these impacts for the construction
periods, which vary among closure alternative as follows Alternative 2A: 36
months; Alternative 2B: 30 months; and Alternative 2C: 24 months. In
addition, with the use of Alternative 2C, no penetration of or encounter with
the Landfill wastes should occur. The thickness of the existing Landfill cover
material is reported to vary from six inches to forty-eight inches. Therefore,
encounters with Landfill waste material for Alternative 2C will be limited to the
installation of gas vent piping, since the cap depth for this alternative is only
twenty-four inches. Alternatives 2A and 2B, however, have greater depths,
which may require a minimal excavation of Landfill waste materials. This
excavation may warrant the use of air monitoring equipment and possibly the
use of protective respiratory equipment during construction activities.
6. Implementabiliry
Alternatives 2A, 2B and 2C are all technically and administratively feasible.
The majority of the materials and services for all of the alternatives are readily
available.
Alternative 2A utilizes a clay cover system that is a proven and reliable landfill
closure technology. Although the majority of the materials and services for
Alternative 2A are readily available, 1 x 107 cm/sec clay is no longer available
locally. Alternative 2B utilizes a geosynthetic membrane cover system which is
considered a proven and reliable technology, although its useful life may be
-------
-21-
uncertain. Alternative 2C is the most easily implemented closure alternative
since the actual depth of the cap is estimated to be twenty-four inches. The
other two Capping Alternatives have greater depths.
7. Cost
Capital cost is the present value for implementing the remedial action. Annual
operation and maintenance ("O&M") costs are used to quantify the yearly
expense of O&M. The 30 year annual cost is then calculated and expressed in
current value terms. Alternative 2C has the lowest capital cost while
Alternative 2A has the highest. The estimated capital cost for each of the
closure alternatives are as follows:
- Alternative 2A - S30.3 million
- Alternative 2B - S24.1 million
- Alternative 2C - $21.3 million
Alternative 2A costs are sensitive to the availability and prices for clean fill and
1x10" cm/sec clay. Currently this clay is not locally available, which accounts
for the high cost for Alternative 2A. Alternative 2B is sensitive to the
availability and unit prices for clean fill material and geosynthetic membranes.
Alternative 2C costs are sensitive to the availability and unit prices for clean fill
and low permeability asphalt.
The annual O&M cost for each alternative are estimated as follows:
- Alternative 2A - $280,000
- Alternative 2B - $222,000
- Alternative 2C - $212,000
Detailed cost figures for each alternative are included in Table 14.
8. State Acceptance
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation concurs with
the selected remedy.
9. Community Acceptance
All comments submitted during the public comment period were evaluated and
are addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
-------
-22-
IX. SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the results of the OU 1 RI/FS report, as well as a detailed evaluation of all
comments submitted by interested parties during the public comment period, EPA has
selected Alternative 2B as the preferred choice for addressing source control
management of the Landfill. The cost of this remedy is estimated to be $26.2 million.
This alternative involves includes:
1. Implementing New York State closure requirements specified in 6 NYCRR Pan
360, Solid Waste Management Facilities Regulations, which includes
constructing a geosynthetic membrane cap on the top surface of the landfill, as
described below:
• 24-inch barrier protection layer which is made up of:
- 3 inches asphalt top course or - 6 inches vegetated top soil
- 8 inches asphalt base course or - 18 inches silty sand or other
suitable soil cover
- 13 inches subbase course
• geosynthetic membrane (40 MIL with permeability 1 x 10'" cm/sec);
• 3 layers of geosynthetic filter fabric;
• 12- inches of gas venting layer (permeability 1 x 103 cm/sec);
• clean soil fill of varying thickness to construct a cap
system foundation with a minimum 4.0 percent slope;
• gas riser vents extending from within the refuse material to 3 ft above the final
ground surface elevation (minimum of one gas riser vent per acre); and
• crushed stone backfill around gas venting risers.
2. Providing long-term operation and maintenance of the Landfill cap, including
routine inspections and repair;
3. Providing long-term air and groundwater quality monitoring in accordance with
the New York State closure requirements;
4. Monitoring and maintaining the passive gas venting system installed under a
previously implemented response action, including routine inspection and repair.
-------
-23-
5. Installing an additional passive gas venting system, constructed so that it can be
easily converted to an active gas system, should conversion become a necessary
part of the remedy in the future;
6. Maintaining the existing boundary fence around the perimeter of the Landfill
property to continue to restrict access to the Landfill; and
7. Placing institutional controls on the Landfill property to restrict future use of
the Landfill in order to ensure the integrity of the cap.
The selected alternative provides the best balance among the nine criteria used by the
EPA to evaluate remedial action alternatives. LDRs are not applicable for this Landfill
because the waste is capped in place. Alternative 2B uses proven containment
techniques and will minimize future contaminant migration by reducing the volume of
precipitation which percolates through the landfUled wastes. The effectiveness of the
selected cover system in protecting groundwater quality will be verified as per the
New York State closure requirements.
The precise location of each aspect of the selected remedy will be determined during
the Remedial Design phase of this overall remediation project. After the installation
of the final cap and venting system, two quarterly rounds of sampling of the gas vents
for methane and non-methane volatile organic compounds will be conducted. The
sampling results will be utilized to make a determination as to whether conversion to
an active system and/or treatment of gas is necessary.
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, since
it provides protection for site surface soils and gas control and maintains the
highest cap efficiency. The fencing, institutional control and capping all
provide protection from direct contact with contaminated materials. Capping of
the Landfill also reduces the emissions of methane and VOCs and reduces
percolation of precipitation through the Landfill and thus the migration of
hazardous substances into groundwater. Monitoring of the groundwater will
identify any failures of the containment system. The selected remedy will not
pose unacceptable short-term risks.
-------
-24-
2. Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal and State requirements.
The Landfill capping and the long-term monitpring will meet the NYCRR Part
360 landfill closure requirements for a solid waste facility and will comply with
aD provisions of RCRA hazardous waste landfill closure regulations which are
relevant and appropriate to the Landfill.
New York State Pollution Control Regulations, 6 NYCRR Parts 201, 202 and
219, with regard to air emissions will be complied with as well.
3. Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is prescribed by compliance with state and federal solid
waste landfill closure ARARs. The chosen alternative is cost-effective because it
has been demonstrated to provide an overall effectiveness proportional to its
cost.
A cost analysis was done to estimate a range of costs for capital and annual
operation and maintenance. The range of estimated costs considers whether
the cover materials are readily available in the vicinity of the Landfill. The
final construction cost is expected to fall within the range of costs provided.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New York have determined that the selected remedy
represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner for the remediation of
the Landfill. Assuming that the threshold criteria of "Overall protection of
human health and the environment" and "compliance with ARARs" were met,
the critical decisional role was given to the five balancing criteria of 'long-term
effectiveness and permanence", "reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume", "
short-term effectiveness", "implementabiliry", and "cost." The balancing criterias
are summarize below to assess their collective impacts on the remedy selection
process. First, 'long-term effectiveness" as a factor in the selected remedy is
adequate in terms of the degree of permanence which it offers. However, long-
term monitoring will be required to insure that engineering controls are
performing as intended. The selected alternative is the most protective
alternative with respect to future leachate production. Other options such as
-------
-25-
incineration or in-siru treatment are either deficient on the long- term basis or
as in the case of in-situ treatment is technically impractical. Incineration offers
a very high degree of permanence at a very high cost. The "reduction of
toxiciry, mobility or volume" will be achieved to some degree by reducing the
volume of leachate being generated in the Landfill by preventing infiltration of
precipitation into the waste. Other options such as incineration would be
highly effective but it would be impractical because of the volume of waste
present and the overreaching cost factor ($26.2 million versus $1 billion).
Regarding "short-term effectiveness", the selected remedy would achieve the
remediation goal in a shorter period of time (30 months) without any
uncontrollable excavation, while incineration or in-situ treatment options would
take far longer, up to 15 years, before the requisite goals are attained. In
terms of "implementabiliry", the selected remedy will utilize a proven
technology, while other options such as in-situ treatment would not be effective
for the low concentrations of contaminants found at the Landfill.
5. Preference for Treatment As A Principal Elements
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment
because it is impractical to do so and not cost-effective. The Landfill wastes
are the principal threat at the Site. The exact location of any hazardous waste
that may have been disposed of at the Landfill is unknown. Therefore, the
entire Landfill volume, approximately 3 million cubic yards, placed at depths of
up to 90 feet below ground surface, would require excavation and removal in
order to effectively treat the waste. This excavation of such a large volume of
waste is cost-prohibitive. Furthermore, In-situ treatment of waste is technically
impractical because no discrete areas, contaminated by high levels of an
identifiable waste type which represented a principal threat to public health or
the environment, were located. Results from the OU 1 RJ observed low
concentration contaminants dispersed throughout the Landfill. "Hot spots"
which may have been amenable to treatment, were not located.
-------
-26-
APPENDIX 1
-------
FICUUK
MII.LKK. INC.
VIKCE 01 AS SIN
lo/ee
SHOWN
LOCKWOOD, KESSLERtt UARLETT
Syosset, New York
-------
FIGURE 2
i.iNM.iiir
MIIMN IM
UKHWMO.M%SII*aittlllt( II we
**•••••. »••«•«*
o •• ••«• •«•«•<•
n •• liKovwui
•••"••.••»«••• •Mllltt
• •••Ml.Ma IBM
IIMAUMS* CMOUM* •*IIM
muiM|0$oll fc,,,^.
-------
FICUKE 3
|IM«MtN*IU*ltl II MC
|IM«IM)NSIM IANWNI CASMIMIIUNIMCMftLIS
-------
« —-. *.' ru
T A
_ 6 NYCRR PAJ*T 360
> " LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL CAP
:= i f
/=• "' /
• ~^ , L. u*-«e .•«•*.
IP<»
""7
TIVI 23
6NTCRRPXRT360
GECSVNTHETICCAP
^S ••; «.v««»eJ'
V_ oer-x ^»3» _ ss*»
<•-••*. •>: «I'^M <
ALTERNAirVE 2C-CAP
SECTION
-------
FIGURE 5
ir§
•..•!• •**• :
C- Il'f'.O -••»!_
ALTERNATIVE 2A
0*J
ALTERNATIV2B 4 2C
7
VEGETATIVE COVER - CAP SECTIONS
-------
-27-
APPENDK 2
-------
-25-
APPENDIX 2
-------
: ei I
I&tlt L Cenetf.Tt'iesj e{
Kcr.::e::r-4 ht.ii
lyei»t: IwtSiill,
kt
:.-.. ua»:
PtriMttr
Act: cnt
C4rber «n.:^ct
CiCtr 03*1 >•.*.-. t
Iroocat :.M.it
t i ei_ e r oe ; i : urst t .^t.-.«
*v*yi e;-eriet
H.".ky"^ac.-.:eric.
:rJe.k..er:/..s=«-..-un«
1 .l-I;c--_eret -.nt ^«
X.J-::ch:cret t.-.».-.t
1 . J-T: c.-._CTof..-.tn»
CMrrcirrs
1 ,2-I;c.-..ere»t.-.«-t
1 . 1 . J - 1 r ; tJ.: e r o« ;.-.»-.»
1 . 2-^ : c.*.; c : e? r rptr.c
J-O..er:«-..-». »;..-.». tt.itr
1,-sssf rr^
1 . J .2 . i • T»: .-i: •.. rrei-..-.»r.t
tr:r«:-..e7e«-..-.t-t
C.-..tr:it-.j«-t
:.9-:i«.^e;»ir......
:>-::e.-..erestT.««r.t
Jtrut-t
Teiucnr
2-I-:ir.cr.t
Virr; «:»•:«•.€
2-Si»r.rnt
S:yrcr.r
ttl?. t«-i«n»
• ly.tr.t
• • F Xy.cr.t
lei*, ly.tntj
?.«.: VD:.
vo;«:jj» Oriftnie Ci
dviru4 th» On-Sltt <
Syeutt, Ht» Yerk.
::: IY-I
te: i/J/ll
7 J
<4
<:o
<:o
KA
<:o
*plii
it Study, K
<1C
£•
<10
<10
<}
/»»
KA
KA
<;
<:
<2
<2
<2
<;
<;
<2
«1
<:
<2
KA
KA
KA
KA
KA
KA
<:
<2
<*
NA
e
ll r««.:-.» t»;;r-.ti if. e:erc|ri.»*-:c: r«i?t-»« factor tee lev
V li:j^i:n ci-. »stier. :i£^t.
C.F Htihed for VeUtllt Or»»r.ie Cex=?eund« Vy York
eei:«f-ti ir. .''^r>« Itll wirt uvtiyttd usLac OII?A
s. H*» »»rk.
ltlti»l e«libr»tien.
CER.AGHTV £' MILLER. INC.
-------
I. 6»setr,'.r»*. ioo» »{ Velttllt Ori«.-.ie Co^etatd* 1* H»ttr S
Hesiieriai Vtlli duria* th* 0*i-sitt er»und-««ttr Study.
Srcuf. U.ief::i. l?o»»«'. . »r» York.
»Uy
Cr'.l«ct«4 f
1MI,
IY-1
»/*/••
iro
8Y-J6
IY-A
3/4/M
Ace. ont
C*rbor. tirS.i-.tt
Jt
MA
NA
NA
<5
<5
NA
<3
NA
Mf.feTltnt e.-..er:er
Triehlercf i.sm inar.«
l.;-5ieh:eref.!-.fr.t
J.:-ric.k.:ereet.-.«^t
J.J-Jlc:-.. crof..itn«
Caereierr
1.2-2iei:;erB*-.b.«-»
I.! , l-trii.-.. eTse".»re
:.2-:;e.»..srtsrrs»rt
2-:i.erot-.r.T. vir.y. «-..-.tr
I:oacfen
I.} ^.J-Tt-rai.-.lerrit.-.tr.e
Tti;*cM erett.itr.t
C-ereStr.if-t
i.J-:;e-.:r:str.ttr:«
1.2-:;c!-.:ers:t-iiT..
1, 4-5ieMsTinr.it™
•tr.ttn*
le.utr.»
2-l-'.a.-.rr.»
Ti-.?; »cc. <-.r
:.ireet:.-..JTS=«-.kj--»
4-»t t.k.» . - : -ytr.-.4,-.sr.t
2-It<4.-.er.«
I-. TTtat
IthT- btr.tea*
* Xylcnt
• • p Xyitnt
7e-.*i rj.tr.t
Tetkl VKt
All Tti.l-.» rt;rr-.»£ if. K;C:
<3
NA
<5
<3
«e-.le«t. S*^iii eeUcettd ir. Jun« Itll wtrt tr^ljitt uiia« 0*t?A
Hc.hMt t:i i:: 6» teet««-. '.*i>ctkteri««. lot.. Kcr-.b »4>T:eo. H«v Y»rk.
HA Vet *.-alrttj
J lit L.'u-.tc v>lut
t !«-.« _-..»ti;.« Tti;:r.it f«c-.er tee lev d^rinc tr.itl»l e»llbr«tteo
GER.AGHTY e NHLLER. INC.
-------
fekl* X. Cootrr.'.rt-'.oru ef »eli:U« Or»4,-.It C«^>evmdJ In tUttr (•
«er.::eria« *t;i« duria* tb» Oe-lltt Crlt( Celitetcd frw
*r «a* JMM !••*,
J fi t
— I«plie»tt» — •
>.r_ttr
C*rSor. «:•.:/;«
l.-oe 03* •..*•.*.-.«
Ciet>Jcree:f:^oE
Tir.r; e.vieriet
C^oret tft*n*
Ht;h»;t«» ti;e:
Tr;ei_:ere.'..oo«
I.J-;:e.k..eret-..'
2.2-5ie.>Uer»«i>
2.2-::e.k.;erotih
Ciiereiers
5,2-r;c.-.:er:?rs
OJersc.irac.;:*
2 .4 , * * . r ; c .*.. ; T ;
Iroetfcr:
2.2.2.2-Tt:r*:.k.
Tt tr*:>.. erert.it
C^ercbtr.irr.t
2,J-"ie.-.;ersstr.
2.2-r;s.w..ers»«-
2.«-r:s.k_tristr.
Itrjtr.t
Te^utn*
2-Jj-.»--.en»
^•£7* ACtlltt
r:i.*eoc:.-.. ::«x
^•W* •** • • T- pcr.i
2-Etiw.cr^
J-.Trt.it
Il^7^ btnstn*
* Xy.tnt
• • p X»;tn»
t«t»: rr-«n«»
Tot*: voct
All rttultt ttf
ttsf'.tt eeilte:
l«ber*:crit< I
b't:;: fy.jD
:»:t Itnt <2
<•
iCTff 42
r-iftt <1
*A.1f <2
. . *. •*ac**c <2
-t <:
•..-j--.t ptr ilttr (
te lr K»r Jtll »«r» «.-.*: 71 td ui
r.e . K:r.ret . Cerj-.«ttiei;t . $*=?
SY-A
•/•/•I
MA
O
O
O
O
<1
<2
<2
<2
t ter »el»:llt
< if. Junt If II
CY-4
«/•/••
MA
MA
0
<2
o
o
o
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
/••
v 00
OO
MA
<20
OO
--.itt:.t rttf6f.it f»eter tec l«v durin* leltltl c*Ubritioa.
CJ If.is*-.«c et-.tt-.-.er. ;is:t.
CERAGHTV (^ MILLER. INC
-------
t»klt L Cenecr.trttlesj «f Volttli* OriuMf (
Mes^cris* *tli» dar.ai tb« Ori-$ltt
11. freitct. H«* T»rk
tB Hater fe^lc* Ccll«et«4 fr
Itutfy, NIT oatf Jto» 1MB,
e.' I
2*-.
P».-»*ritr
Acf.cnt
C*rber. «lii..f;oe
Ireeeat -.!•.•>•
Sleh.;er«iiJ.-oa«-S*a
Vinyl eiicr.d*
^'y".^*"«Ler;%
Cfc.cre.'crs
1.2-5.e.--tr*«th»r>«
2.} .J-Irlti^erot :.^*.i
CtrScr. it:r»tr_:er.e«
)res3e.c.-.:crsa» :.-.*.-.c
;,2-I;.er.;cre;TS?*r.t
tr».-.j-;.}-rier..ers;r
Tr;e.w.; crettiT.tr.*
Ci. e?». 1 traocst :.M.i*
I.; .2-Tr:e.-.:srotii*.-.
cit-i. l-J.t.-.^srsirs?
2-O.leroetr.T. »ir.y.
• r os* • G ^s
Ch;crcitr.»tT!t
l.»-:;!r_e:is»T.*tr.e
It Merit
te:.«rit
i-l.tir.tnt
V-.r.y. ccf.tt*
;iirssie:.-.:srss»t!'.».-.f
* -St tr.r . -J-?tr.-.»r.er.«
2-»t»*.-.rrj
Itrrer.e
I:*.?: kcuca*
« Xr.tnt
• • r x*:tM
tetAl ^r.tn«»
T«4i TO:,
A:i rt.»!t. t.?««.<
S«=£.ti cclite-.tc ;r
Ucerf.e;:t*. Ise
rif.b»ei t:: , t:: b<
KA He: cra.rtte
j I»-ia*:»t »»iut
1 6.:. ^..«*..t
8J tc. ^s«itc ef. t:
" Wt:i: SY-t
• St£7.t«: 4/2/»l
<18
«5
00
1 HA
per llitr
>U* :tlf vtr» «--al7tt< u
Rtr.ro* . Cer.-.te: le-jt . S«s
£ee7«tt L»icrf.erit». Jne
.
rt/?r-jt ftetcr t»» l«v
ties iLcit .
IY-*
•/*/••
HA
KA
<1
<1
<»
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<1
<2
1
<:
. »*»Ti-
«urin< iBititl
$Y-*D
4/2/»»
.
00
<4
00
KA
00
<3
KA
<4
<4
<4
*
<4
<4
<5
<4
<4
<4
<4
KA
<4
<4
HA
<4
-.*
% 9
<4
<4
MA
HA
KA
<4
2 J
ft
<:o
<4
<:o
00
o
<4
KA
KA
**
•
d f»r Velttili
in Junt iftl
•R. ••« *«*k.
e»Hkr»ti»a.
STf-tD
•/*/•!
KA
KA
OrfhMt
v«rt *n»
sr-7
4/2/««
<10
<4
00
KA
<:o
<4
tu
-------
ta*lt I'. Coaetr.trtiionj ef TeUtllt Orianic C
Hesiter^u Mtlii owriat tbt Oe-Sitt
a^e-jtAt LL Vatir (a^l«
Cro-jad-W4t.tr Study, Hay
i Collected ft
•ad Jttt* I*M,
•IB
Fait i e' S
fyvtttt '^Mf.tiiii, fyeiMt, Nr» Y*rk.
«:;
_.-.. S^..i
Act tent
iriijnai thane
t:ch:oroe:r..Da>«-..-j..-.t
TieyJ e.w..er;t«
Chi erect. ".ant
Methyitr.t chienet
Irlct:ertr:yoof..".*.-i«
J.l-tie.k_crof:."-.tnt
l.J-Siei_er»«-..-.*r.»
1.2-8iiii:er»«ift«st
C^erefers
i^-Sieilerottfta.-.t
Career. tt:r«ch.:r;ct
>: aee::c.-.: ero=* -.-»r.e
l.i-Iiei.err;.-:?.-.
Iriei-erot :>».tr.«
Cilertt. : r sscst -..-.»r»
l.l,2-Tri:.v:errt:.-^.-.t
tti-1 .!-l.ei:er:;r::tr.t
2-— M_src«i.TT. v..-j. ttr.tr
Ireaef:^
: . i.2.2-Tetr»sh: trotth»r.t
It -.r »£.-.: ere«-..-.»r.«
C.M:i:9tr.ttr.t
1,3-JieJ.. ersrtr.ttr.t
l,2-::e.-.:e:tstr.itr.t
J >-2ie^.c:£&tr.xt.r«
ktr.ttr.t
Teiutr.t
2-1-^tuim*
'ir.j: tcr-.c.t
rii:oe»c.-..cr:r«-..-.«r.r
*-«»t.ry; - ;-ytr.t*.Mr.t
2-t»t.-.cnt
l-.yrtnt
Ivhy: W .%>•=•
• x?:tit
• • > Xy^cn*
Total (T.tatt
Jetal »»:•
,v.,
: 3/1/M
<10
oc
NA
<:o
JO
sr-i
•'•'•'
NA
MA
<1
ptr llttr (u*/l).
Sisp'.tt tei^tc-.ttf :r. K>« Ull »t.-« if^'.jitt mini Cif Htthetf for Ve:«:ilt Or$»r.ie Coepeuntfi ky T»tk
Ltbcraterici. Ir.c. , Ksr.rM . Cer.-.tetleut. tvsp.ti ceUtct*< in June ltd «trt v^Iyitd u*ia« OSt?A
Ntthotf* »::. t:2 t? IceTt*-. l^bcr«terl««, lac., Menh »*fcTlei. M«v T»rk.
MA (let •Ai^rt*'.
J ti:^s«:te v»:ut.
1 5a:» \=-..tt*:.« rt»;r.-.»« faeter t»e l*v during tr.iti»l e«likr*tl«c.
BJ ti:^a*tti »«-.«t-.ier. *i&it.
CER.AGHTY ^ MILLER. INC.
-------
t ef I
T«*le 1. tract r-.ntieni ef TeUtilt '*r$»fli«
Nes:-. erin* »t.;» d-rln^ the OB'flt*
eH^MMt
V«t«r S*^l«i C«
Iturfy. tuy Md
ilUeted fi
'••
tyoi»ti LAfl£/lll, Srexti, R«v Yerk.
We-
St-.. ««?..<:
Acttent
C»rbor iUiiliid*
IreBentthAn*
Sit.w_eroi..r. joe«t^».i«
*j,«y: eh.tr iet
C&Uretthv.t
Utthyitnt ei.eridt
Trie-^erei ; won*? r.tttt
l.l-:ic.-..ere«tn«n»
1.: -lie.-., crei -..Vint
l.J-:.c.-.:erw.ft«.i»
C^ereiers
:.J-::c.-..irerr.'v» .»
1.: :-Tr;e.-..ercf >.»**
C*rber. t »•.;*;.-.. e . ct
tt«Ai-;.3-r:er.:« s;rc?tnt
I»;e>.;erett-«.tr.
Biieree. ::sr.3««-. o.-t
2.:,?-;r;ch.;ere« ,-.»r-.t
eti-" <-*;e*'c-- -esfit
»-:>._=re»t=y. »i?.?. tt.-.tr
fro=i:r=
I.: 2 I-'.-.r^-rrett-^-..
C-..cr:it.-,itM
1.3-Z: e.-.. cr: ;e-.j«r.«
l.*-::c.-..CT:i«rjtr.t
Icr.itnt
I*.ue^»
J-»--.*.-c-t
CUreae:':e;Iart.\tr*
*-»U-.f:».-2.?«r.-.*.-.efi.
Itrrlnt""
It.'.jl e«rj*n*
• Xyl.ne
• • B X»i»at
I«t»i ^..ntt
ret.: TO:,
...
J/J/M
<10
<10
MA
<3
NA
NA
NA
-
»lf *«;t «-.»:y»»d uiln« Cl> «»-.h»d for
. Ce-.->*c: '.cut Su^;ci eelitetttf ir. Jwnt 1*M
Ceepevmd*
Tcrk
Hctheet
•A Vet
J If.
t t«t»
CJ !>-.
tec ic» durl»«
CERACHTYr MILLER. INC.
-------
Cenctr.:r«:ieaj ef 'elttu* Ori*.-.le Cimfn'tnrlt U Hitcr Stapiti &cll»ettd fro
Hesiterin* »«.li duriaj th» Oe-Sltt Cred^-Vtttr Stud*. Htj «b4 -hat* !••(,
••* T«rk.
'•ie 7 ef I
tit:::
,.~,.r "" """""
Ac<:ent
Iieeeofl.'-.An*
Ei c.k.: erei :f ; veat ihmt
Vinyl e.'-.er:oe
Ovlerw.. -.*?>«
HtlEj.tn* c.-.leridt
Tric!ilcref:.BS»-..-.4.->*
J .2- Jie.Merot -_-itn»
CUcrefers
I.2-2!eh:ere«tu-(
I.: .:-tr;e.w..erDtt.-.4n»
CAT her. t»'.r»:.-.. er ;ot
Irerest: c.-.. s : aew : .-.*.-.«
Cu ero; . : r »e^» ; .•.».••. t
3.1.2-Tr:e.-..eref..-.4nt
ct»-i.!-:i:>..s.~s;rs?tr.«
3*:>.;er0f..*.j: »i.-.»: f.Rtr
I-o*ei:r=
3 .1 . I .*-Tf : n:.k.; crse: .k-i_nt
Tt •- rf :.*.. e r ec •..-.er.t
C.-~c;c:cr.itr.t
I , J-Il:.-.. c rji.tr.nrif
l^-TiC.'-.-erijtr.jtr.t
; »-r:ck..s:titr.it.-.t
ttrutrit
Telucnt
:-l--.4.icne
Tir.y; 4et-.*t*
:;iroaee:-.:err3»t.''j.-.t
«-«!tt.-.».-;-p«r.a4.-.er.t
2-ft«47.er.t
it»r«n«
Iti». btr.rcr.*
• Xy.tr.t
• * p Xyltn*
{0:4: r>.tr.t»
Tet4: v»:.
All rvt^lti rr?cr:»c 1.* e.e?eir4.
ttsf'.n ce.l»c-.c: ir. .".47 HII wt
L4beri:e;:ti . Ir.e . . Ksr.rot. Ccsn
Nttheei :«Ak i
«/*/••
NA
NA
:*> ec::»etti
Fleid ^^.^
l)&n« I
i/t/ll
NA
NA
<1 •
<1
<1
<1
<2
<2
<2
<2
<:
<2
<:
-------
fefelt I Ccnctr.t ration* ti »el»:llt Oritele C
Keiiterlr^ •«:!§ duriat th* Oe-Sitt
Syetsr: LtA&iUl. Syeitct, •*• Ttrk.
is tUitr Saapltf
'»«t I e; |
itu,
trip
V*:i: Cta* 4
:.t. su?
Ptrtarttr
Act lent
Ctrber. iii.liiat
Overeat ihtne
Izasaatthiri*
Vic>^ere£if iuocwr&AA*
'Uiyi ciiler iot
C^cretititnt
NttAyitnt chiertef
I» i st; e rt f 1 v; ao* : .-.*.nt
J.J-tieh-erotthtnt
1 , } -Oi eiu c ; »t ih«.nt
l.J-:ic.-..eroti.ita«
C^creftrs
1.2-::ehlerettftA^»
1.! . :-:r:c.-..er5ti.-.«--.t
C*;ber. ttt ;•:.-.. cr;e«
Ir «9cc . c.-.. e : ant i.-.*.-.t
2.2-::ct.e;:;r:;«.-.t
C-.leret.ir:-;s=<-..-.».it
J.:.2-Tr;t.>-.:ere»i.-.«r.t
2-th^ereti;»i vissy; ti.it r
tzastitrs.
2.1.2 . J-T»trttr.:eret:.-.4--.t
Ietr»eMirsti.-.tr.t
fc.crsstr.ttr.t
J »-::ci.crt:tr.it.-.t
fcr.str.t
Te.gtrt
3-».lt.-.rr.t
Ti-»: •ef.t:*
risrs9esr.;e:3et-..-.c.it
*-«Mi.-T;-;.?cr:»r.snt
2-St«*.-.oat
StTrfr.t
l;»T; »«-scn«
• Xyicat
• • p Xrltr.t
*ei.4. «yitaei
r.-..: voc,
All Tt«.lt> ;t?crtt£ ir. Ki
f*^;ti cc:i»c-.i: if. Kiy J
X*bcr»:crie< . Jr.e . Kcr.ret
Htthect •:: , t'2 b» £c:Tti
•A Ket A^Aiyttd.
J ti:l£«:tc »»:ut .
.*e.- */!/•»
t I til
sn. ••• t»rk.
Organic CeopeviA4i ky Tetk
wire AAA:rted u«iA( VSOA
et-.tciicr .ic.it.
STILLER. INC.
-------
'*!< • e* S
2. Cenctstratiea* «f H«tali {FUttrtd M* BnfUtartd) LB w*ttr
Ccli»ei«d free HoaitorUj Vclli durtn* tha Oe-Sitt Crovad-Uatcr Study,
LantffUi, Syoitti, lev Terk.
Cat*
IY-1 •
i/J/ll
SY-l
*/«/!•
IT-ID •
S/J/M
rr-io
IT-10
«/«/•*
tir
MtiMi? a. Sb
Araatie a» Ai
kryUluc at »•
Catisii« at C£
Chrotiua at Cr
Copper at Ca
L«ad at ?k
Mercury at Bg
lick*, at Ki
(•icr.ius at S«
Iil»ar at A4
Thai! lie at T;
Zi*« av Za
Sotera:eritt , Inc., Kerih Babylon. Ntv York
MILLER. INC.
-------
F«4t 2 ei •
XtfeU 2. Cene»r.t ration* ef l**t»li C7Ut«rt« tn4 Onfilt«r«d) la W»t«r ftM*l«*
Collected ir« we-ltorln* W«1U duru» UM Ob-fit* Sr»und-K»t«r ftudy,
lyo.Mt Undili:, I?oi»ti. Mv Jfttk.
C«:r
4/»/M
5/4/11
«/?/»•
ST-2D •
J/4/M
ST-2B
$/»/•»
*/?/••
ittr
AntiiMny •* Sb
Arxiue •* A*
l«r?lil\« *i I*
C*dc;>« ft* Cd
Chrce:ue ft* Cr
C»pp«r •• Cu
i«ft4 ft* ?b
Mercury •« Bf
Hiekftl *> Mi
icltaiif •• $•
Silver •• A«
Tfcftlli* •• T;
2lac ft* Za
*e«r:.i« •> »«
Iran •* f»
-------
'•«t 2 c.' I
2 - Cone«n-.r»Morj of M*t«ti (Flltcrvd
Ce:itetc« froe Mcr.itsriat W«Uf
i*B<:.'iii. Sreittt, ••« fork.
Onfl'tmd) La Hitcr
tb« Oe-tit*
Studr.
Sat* S«s?;
IY-J •
tY-3
3/4/SI
SY-3
4/7/|»
JY-3D •
i/4/M
IY-SB
S/4/M
SY-A •
i/t/il
IY-A
Actiaonr «» It
Al»*aU 4> A>
itrrilUBi ti »•
C«deii» 4. Cd
Chr«ci-jc •* Ct
Cappv; 4* Cu
U*(! •• PS
M«rcury *t B(
•icfc** 41 Hi
••ivRtvCE 41 S»
lii»»l 41 A4
Thin it* 4< r:
Zinc •• Zr.
leeixt •• K*
Pct»Hi'JT *• K
l4rlUB 4» S*
Irer. •• Ft
0.0:2 J
o.:i
o.ot: j
-------
• ef »
2. Ceaetctritieaj
(TiU«r«d 4n4 Bnf llttrwd) U> U»t«r
C«ii»ctt4 fro* HeeiterLa* H«Ua 4urLo« the te-tit*
Sretttt LAndiill. *yoi»tt. B«v Tark.
tcu*7.
Will
t*-.t $».•=?. .
SY-J5
*/»/H
SY-A
»/»/!!
IY-* •
3/S/M
SY-*
J/i/»»
IY-4
»/»/»»
farinwttr
«jrti»cr.y it Sb
Azifbic 41 A*
»«niu«e *• *•
dteiwe II C4
ChroB'.w *i Ct
Copptr ii Cu
L««i «i ~
H*reut7 «• tt
•lck«: ii Ki
<€iniva •> S«
Si:*«r «i A4
thailtws •» 71
Ila« •» In
%o4i*t •> X*
Fet*«.iue 11 K
Urius « 1*
Jr«r. •* ft
O.OS7 J
0.0:4 J
» IccTtJ: l*»er*tetlti . Inc.
»*=;.c.
Kerth l»byler. . Htv York.
OJ
c«-.ec;ier. .1=:-. .
CERAGHTY
-------
P»»t i o.'
Taki« 2. Cenetatritien* oi Mctali (Tllttrtd 'and Onf llttr»4) la Hater S«a*la*
C«;jaet»d freB Keciterlai ««U» durla« the te-Sltt Crouad-Watar Study.
Syottct l*nd/ill. Syottit, Rr* Yark.
I
IY-S •
4/J/«l
5/l/M
$Y-5
»/?/••
5/2/H '
S/2/«»
»y-6
4/t/II
Pcraarttr
Antlaeny at Sb
Aritric at At
BcryiliuB at >•
Cadsivn at C«
Chreaiu* at Ct
Copp«r at Cu
laa< at Pb
Hcreurr at Bf
liek.l at Ki
S<:«r.iuc at S«
Silver at A|
Thaillue at ~-
Jtnt at ZB
CW.>K a* Ka
Pettti:.^ at t
tariue at it
Iroo at F«
0.001 J
O.C15
-------
t of t
2. C«n«tn-.r»tlonj ef
CelUctctf ire* Necitoriac ««U»
l70«««t Landfill. Syoiact. H«v Tart.
B Vatir
to-llti 6rouad-Uat«r
KtHr
£att $affl?ie«:
AitlBany at Sb
art«r_ic ai At
>e«7lli\* ai I*
C*6sius ai C4
ChroBiuB ai Cc
Copper aj Cu
Laa« at ?b
Mercury ai •«
Biefcal ai Ni
Salecue at Se
SUvct at A4
thaill»« at ti
Hat •* I.-.
%ot',\ft at Ka
Pcr»«t-:iC <•• X
lariiat at la
Icee a* f •
s^!raH;"lriri»r!;;:
J tf.l£J-.«C Vt.Jt
CJ tm.-u-.ec cittctter. lii.
rr-65 •
S/2/U
C.OCi J
. Inc.. Nerth
. .
IT-«0
nr-7 •
rr-7
»/»/•! S/2/M S/2/II
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0
<0.
<0
<0.
00)
002 C.
001
001
oos e.
.02
PCS
-------
2. Ceoetr.tr.-.iouj of M*tali (PiUirtd «4
Colitet«« frae Heniteriat H«U» durla*
Sre<»<- L«fl*iiil. Syeittt, lew Terk.
H(t>r
te-Sitt Croua4-V«ttr
$Y-» •
S/3/H
$»-•
t/l/M
rr-9
S/J/M
nr-»
»/JO/il
Anti»cny «
C.dc:-jc 4t U
Chreeiia ti Cr
Capper «« Cu
U«< »» Pb
Wtreurr •» B(
•lck<: 41 Hi
ttl*Zi.-Jt »• $•
Iti»«r 41 A»
lh»::n« 41 ?i
Zinc 4i Is.
IctfilB 41 K4
>Ot*li:uB 41 K
&4?iVB 41 t4
ll*Ti 41 f(
C 00* J
«e.oc2
<0.001
:0.00} UJ
<0.02
<0.00i
-------
F*(t I of I
2- Canentrfieai of Mttal* tt»ei7 " «»
Arxr.ic •> A*
terrlliiB •* 1«
CcteitM •« Cd
Chraeii» •> Cs
Copper *t Cu
u*e •> Fb
Mtreurr »• It
•iek«i «i Hi
Stl«?UUK tl S*
Silver »i A<
IhtUitfi «i tl
Zinc •• Za
«*<;« 4> II*
Fetiitit* •> K
tt.ii.-m. *i I*
Ires •* Tr
0.016 J
0.13
-------
**»« « a t
3- r -.«ntr»t icru »f fctUet*4
R. :.itorln« *«::
Oe-SU>
Tork.
Ln Vittr Strict Collected in*
C»tt
ftramttr
IY-1
S/l/8*
$Y-1
*/«/••
IY-1C
S/J/il
ST-J8
IT-2JI
IY-UI
*/•>/!!
I»t«l di»ielv«d teiiei
Specific tmeuevir.tt
(uaho/ea)
yC (vent*)
Oder 14* «« c:
litrtt* 4t N
taniT-ii 4< K
l*rca«ii 4» C.::3
Slurb. Alx C*"3
C*rber.*ti A.« C*CI3
ftu* £xiv A f 5^4
A|^A^ i^ify ICt «AC*3
Rmc.j (i F.i«-eL
Cy«r.iflt *• CK
209
40C
S.I
4S
0.6
3.2
70
123
0
22
12C
o.eei
' & NflLLER. INC
-------
P»M J si 6
3 - CoaetatriUae* tt »«l«et«« Inoricole r^iminili la ««t«r £a*el*i ColUet«4 t
«.i» «urla« th* Oe-Slti Grovad-U*t*t Itudy and th«
, $yoi««t L*niiUl, tro»«t, •«« York.
IY-2D SY-Z3 fY-J fT-1 «Y-» ft-A
5/*/M
ittr
t*t.l Inc., North Jtbrlen. R*« York.
tftl&i-.tc v»...
GER.A.GHTV er NULLER. INC.
-------
Conc«atr«tior.j e! S«ltcttd laerta&ie Ceope\adi la tUttr Sa^lu Collected
Hetitot;a« kcili durU* th« te-Sitt Greuad-««ttr Study tad tb« Undfill D
Stud;, S»o»«*t Landfill. Syo»»tt, ••« Terk.
C*:t Si=?.«e:
SY-3D
»/»/•!
SY-A
«/•/•!
IY-4
3/5/M
$Y-*
•/•/••
»Y-J
S/l/M
SY-S
«/7/*l
?ct»i diitol*«d «eiidi
Specific coneuetmae*
ft (uait.r
Chlerid* «J CI
lltratt *» II
«imr~" i •• H
Etrdno* »» C»")
Blcark. A.M C*::3
C«rber,*t« Alk C»C:3
Suifttt »i s:4
Al^Ali£i*9 tO* CAC:3
W>.».1. .. Fht!..^
C,«id. .. C.
1.400
2,1:0
« 1
1)0
<0.3
13:
44;
1.230
0
14
1.2::
C.063
<:.:: uj
1.400
2.100
• t
1)3
<0 5
110
450
1.200
0
14
1,2:0
0.006
<:.C2 u.T
4»0
• «0
7.7
120
4.1
1.2
110
11
0
150
3*
0.00»
<0.02
MO
1,000
• .0
170
12. •
4 .4
190
40
0
210
40
<0.001
<0.02 DJ
540
•S3
t.5
120
2.0
l.t
170
120
0
100
120
0.001
<0 C2
»40
•00
• .7 '
120
1.0
1 *
210
ito
0
• 0
110
-------
ef 6
3. Cenetntr«:i«-J ef *€ltet«d Xner|«ale C«^
pi (ur.lt* )
Qxlerid* •• Cl
•itreti »» N
«• in 1 1 1 1 *« R
•iTdncit •« c*r:i
>ic«rb »i* *b;lea.
240
420
S.«
*•
5.0
0.5
7i
•
0
••
•
.001
£.02
••« York
230
410
s.»
71
5.2
0.52
16
10
0
72
10
-------
'•«• 5 ei 6
3. C«ne«ctri-.iom t! Scl«et»d lacrjanic Ceo^eiadt la W*ttr Strict CelUetctf f
Moel-.oruw Ktll* durla* ttu Oc-Sltt Crou&d-Utttr Itudy aad tb» Urxifi.ll C
Wtll:
D«t» $fc=?i«d:
r«r*Mt«r
Tet»I di«»olv«i iclid*
Specific eensucttr.c*
ft (uclti)
Chlertdc •< Ci
•ltr«tt •» K
taocr.it «• K
fartfMti ». C.CIJ
•ie*rb. Alk C*::j
C*rben*t* Aik C»C:3
Sul/*tr «i S!4
Alkaliiit? let d::3
Phtnclf •• F.Ht-e.
Crcald* »< CN
f% t ^ .
SY-«
J/J/»8
3SO
5(0
S.6
S»
-------
>««« * ei «
tmklt 3. Concentration* ef Selected laerttale Cocpovsidj la Water leaflet Collected fra»
NeniterlB* helli durta« the Oe-Slte Groiad-Uater Study aad th> LcneULll Oiacatle
Sreittt Luvdilll. Sre**et. le« Terk.
9*:t Sidled: J/3/«i */7/(l
total dUiolved lellds
Specific conductance
ft (unit i)
OUerlde aj Cl
•Itrate at R
AfDonla ai H
Bardaei« ei CaCCI
Bicarb. Aik Ca::3
t»rboTJte Alk C*r:3
Suifate ai S3*
AikAiiuty tat s*:::
fhenei* ai fher.o;
CyaAide at CN
' 2.2CO
J.JiO
6.2
»90
<0.5
16
420
320
0
190
32C
C.OC3
<:.C2
i.too
1.200
6.1
too
<0 3
li
n:
110
0
110
110
<8.oc:
»r^.»t»i IT I;cTti-. ^*ber*terie<. Inc., North Babylon, Mev Terk.
J tlt^U'.IC Vt'.-Jl
U Xit^aattd e«:t:;;ez lisit.
L..RAGHTY £' \T1LLER. INC.
-------
Pait : el 3
Tabl* 4. Conetntra:ion* of Velatil* grfW.c Coopovad* la Sell $«j*>l«< Collected
fro« Soil »orla-:er6«th«r»«
1 ,1-Sier.lero* than*
I.2-Sje>.:erotir.*ri«
OJercfcrs
1 ,2-Jie.k.:ere*ih*ri*
2-l-ta.ient
! , 1 . i - ~: : ei-.i ere* than*
Career, tf :r»e.-..er:o«
Viny'. ǣȥ. 4-. t
Ireace^c.Meroettha.-.*
1.2-Iie!-..ere?ro?a.-.*
tr *.-.!-; , 3-rie.k.iere;re?«n*
titroaec.-.:er»«tn*rit
l,:.2-rri£.v.orof.nar.*
Icutnt
eli-1 ,3-riehIerepreptn*
2-Ch:er»ttr.y;vi.-.y.«-.h«r
Ireocfcrs
4-»f.hy;-;-p*r.tanoB*
2-Bt»*--.on«
T* t rachl e roe then*
1,1 . 2,1- Tti rich. cro«th*nt
Telutnt
Chlcrobcr.xen*
Cthylbcnaenc
ftyr*n*
Total vyitne*
OiehloredifluereeMOMn*
total VOC*
13
<11
5 J
<11
<11
•
<1 »
4 J
<»
<»
<6
6
<6
20
i J
4 J
<11
4 J
<6
<6
<6
<6
<6
6
<7
<7
<7
<7
1)
<7
<15
<7
<7
<1S
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<1S
<7
05
OS
<7
<7
<7
11
•
<7
1* 1
—
3)
1-2
11/4/17
• 0
0*
04
04
04'
<7
S3 >
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
20
<7
<7
<14
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<14
<7
<14
<14
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
—
20
Ail Tttulti rtpertti lr eicrofrtsi ptr kilo|r*a (u(/k|)-
Stsf.tt tr^:ri*< \ii'.r+ VS7?A Mtthod <24 by York Libertterio* . Inc.
J li-.--u-.it v«.-jt. 1*11 tw.v.- tht dtt*et:er. lu;;*. , but |r«»:«r
J >r^.ytt ofttctti :.- --.« :'.trj. •< »«:; aj ir. tht ikapic
• ; i*:«etier. . -i..: »."-«s.
Honro* , Connecticut.
»«ro
GERAGHTV
-------
2 of J
!*•!• 4 . Canetntrat left* of Telatilt Orfanlr Ceapeiad* la Sell Saa^lt* Colloetod
froB Seil-*erlA«» durlac tht Landfill Oiawajiee Study. «*e*»«t
(ye»tt. Vov York.
l«.r?lt Dt« if nation:
$4v=;;t Catt:
S*.r$:« ttpth (ft}:
1-2
11/4/17
15
1-2
10/27/17
Trie »laak
10
11/7/17
40
BO
ll/f/17
•0
»0
ll/t/17
110
Para
Cbleroiwthant
IrooooMtaant
Ttnyi ehiorldt
Chlerotikant
Htthyiant thioiidt
Action*
Carbon dilulfidt
1.1-Ciehieretthtnt
1.1-CseKi eret thant
1.2-Ole.k.ierotiatnt
CUerefezs
<3
<5
730 >
22 J
<40
<40
<40
<*
• 3 •
<*
54 I
5 J
<6
<*
trar.*-!. 3-*;ch. ercpreptnt
Jriehlcrof. >.».«nt
2-Ch^ore«t.-.».vir.y.tth«t
Iroeiefera
<6
.*••..-»• s1"- • • i'e!'' l»ber»:crU.i , ,'r.t
J »:_^:»i v!..,; :»j» :.ko--. tht d«:tc:lcn lUDit. but §rt»:tr
> X-^:y:» dittettd ir. tht fcl».-ut ai vtil ai IB tht aaa^lt.
He et-.tetier. :ielt jivtr..
Conr.tetieut.
»tro.
CER-ACHn* c^ MILLER. INC.
-------
>««t J of 3
?•*!• «. ConemintioAj «f TeJ«tllt Or«4nle Ce^ow** la tail C«*rl«i Cellccted
free Sell loria,, durla* U- landfill Di*»nji»e Studr. if»«»et Landfill,
fyextt, ••« York.
tVSfi* C*tl:
ttff'.t fiepth (ft):
CM oroae thane
Tlnyl ehieride
ChleroethArie
Mtthyiea* chloride
Acetone
Ctrber. dlj-wjflde
l,l-rie.k.;ereethene
1 .l-5ier.ieroe:Ji«f»e
1 . 2-1; th; erstihj.it
l.l"I*:"!h:er«th«>.
C«rber. 1 1 -.r«:.-..oriot
Viryl *et:*te
I.-oae* ; e>.; e r o»« -.."^r.e
1 ,2-riehI crc;rsp4.*ie
trtr.<-l . 3-;. c.-.l :;:;zepene
Tr:efc:eree-.hy:«ne
r.iroeoc;-.. cr«*;h»r;«
1.! . J-T: .i.-_e:oe t.'.».nt
ler.xene
• if-1. l-5le>.: =r=-rr?.-.
IroscfciB
Tetr*cr.:ereethcne
1 . 1 ,2.2*?ei7*chicreetfeA.*ie
Toluene
Chlf reb«r.r«n«
IthTiber-»«rte
Strrcac
Iet»I jryient*
Tetcl VOC*
•) (UP 1) ••
110
SJ
<12
<4
4* •
<6
<6
<6
«!fi
<6
<6
*"
<6
<:2
<6
<6
(U? 2)
110
S
<12
110 >
<7
<7
<7
—
J J
<7
<7
<7
<14
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
<7
15
<7
<7
<7
47
• *4
Li/17/i7 J
70
S
<11
• 1
It t
<3
<3
<3
_
<5
<3
<3
<3
<11
<3
<3
<5
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
0
»-*
11/17/17
100
"
<10<
74 1
73 1
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<10
<3
<3
<10
<3
<3
-------
; of 7
Cone •etnt let* «f Tel«-U« Orjtftle Coopewidf
fro* w*U BeruB«i duri.ec tht to-Sit*
Syoittt. ••* York.
Sublet C«ll.*ct*4
(ft) :
8Y-1B
12/21/17
SO
IT-IB
12/21/t?
•0
IT-IB
1/7/M
100
IT-IB
• /•»
120
IT-IB
1/J7/M
130
fttr
thlerld*
IrUilorefl-ersrw..*
l.l-2ic£^cro«ihtn«
l,l,l-Trie.*.;etp«-.t
C*rber. t«tr»er_e:idt
tmu • i. S-I; e-.l cr s j r
Trie.1-., orettfty. er.»
Z.1.2.2-7tT7ieh:er«*ihani
1.3-1: eh..creb«r.ttnt
l,J-Ciehierebtr.»«at
• Xyltat
-------
?«»« 2 si
table 5. eoae«n-.r*iienj *f 'elati.'a Oriaale Ca^»oun4« La Sell S«>ple« Celleete*
fr<» Weil leruvci durLae, the Oa-Slte Crauad-Wctir Study, fyeteet landfill,
Syeoet. »e» York.
S«a9«< 3e§lin»tlen:
Staple &4t« :
$•.•9?;* Septa (ft) :
Paramter
Chleremthaa*
IraomthAne
Diehlereiiflaeroeeihafie
Tiayl ehlorio*
QvlerecthAn*
Methyitn* eUeriei
TyicKloref ^ue;9D< tr^A*
X.l-Dlchleratthtrt*
l,:-Di.eMer3.-.-ar.t
1 ,2-Ote.".loro«-..-.«r.«
Chlexeferx
1 . 2-Cieh. oret th*n«
l,l,l*Tnehl9ro< • HA"»
Carter, terse.-.. aria*
BTsne4 • ch* e?oo< t KAAC
l,2-2ic.w.;sr5?Ts?»r<«
trtr.i-; . 3-2tchlere;TSi>«n«
Irieh: erst thy line
(OSJoroSlir *=:==« v.«_i«
I.1.2-Trieh:ors«-..-j.-.*
et»-l,J-Iie.MBre;rs?«r.«
2«^%i T^«ik^*hkttk «e-«*W^ A*^A9
•wuoro* •«7 • **.-7 * • *A>r
IroMfera
l,1.2.2-T«tr»eMere» thane
T*tr*ehler»*tMa«
QCorob«rj«r.«
1. J-Cieh-lsreD«r.nr.«
1 ,2-Dlefciere4«r.*in«
1 . *-Diehlerab«r.itn«
kensene
TeltMBe
Ethyl ber.aine
• Xylea*
• » y Xrlio*
ratal TOCi
SY-2S
2/*/M
JJ
<3
<3
<3
<5
-------
j of
Xcblt 5 . C..oro«;.-.7.tr.t
2-CCo:o«-..-i7l v.r.j. ctAtr
Iraaefere
1 .1 .2. J-TttriehlcrotihAr.t
l.l-Oichlersbt.-.itnt
1 , 4-Dlchier8Str.n.-.t
I thy: b*r.t«n«
i ri7,u».
T»t»I VOC*
III
-------
P*|t * ef 7
t«fel« 5 .
ConetBtrttien* tt
{Tim w«li l«ru\4«
S?oittt. H<« York
Or|«aie Coapevrndi IB Soil S«^>1«> C*ll«et*4
« OB- III* Cround-y»ter Study, Sre**«t Ua&fUl.
s*.,;. 3.,t,Mlt0a:
t«!9i« 0«tk:
S«ffpit Depth (ft) :
'"— *"
oa.,o«t^.
Iro««>«L->n.n«
BleM orodi.fi uera»«th*n«
Vinyl ehlcrtd*
Chioro«ihkn«
•Y-JB
2/H'M
133
<3
<3
or»teTi«», Ins.. lorth
P«v York.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
-------
r*(« s of 7
Ukl* 5 -- Caneen:r«ti«u »t VeUtiU Or»«aie CaafxxaAt La tell S*e*lei CclUete*
fro* Veil Ie7lx4< duriat th« On-lite Cround-lUter Study, Cyo«*et lamfflU,
Sye«*et. »•» Yerk.
SAapie D»tt:
Staple Beptb (ft):
CleM s red if : a« -. wse than*
Tt»yl ehioria*
OUorae:han«
Heifeylene ehierld*
Iriehleref:ucreae-..>.«ne
1.1-Clehlerof.ht-i
l.l-DUhle»o«th»ne
1.2-Bletuatae-.!i»ne
Querefora
l,2-Clehlero«-.h«r-V
X.l.l-trtc^;era«t.-.«.-.e
Carbon tetr»ihier;.ae
IfoMtfkciueT j»«t.-.4.-..
1 .2-01 ehl ar:prop*ne
trirj-1. I-5ic>.;ereprepene
trlehleteetsylene
Olero4 iSraaosw ;.-.«r.e
1.1.2-?riCh;ereet.-.»r.e
«l*-l ,S-Slch;ers?:c?ene
2-Chioret-.hr. fisyl ether
Steexfan
l,1.2.2-Tetr»e.-.;er8eth*ne
Tet r» cJi. e r trt t s»n»
CMereber.tene
i,)-Dlth;oro»«r.ttnt
1.2-DieKleraber.scne
l.»-Dtetierab«n«tnt
freaieae
Toluene
Zthyi >«ntene
• Xrlene
• •* p Xylene
Tet»l 70C*
SY-*D
3/7/H
123
.
GER.AGHTY & MILLER. INC.
-------
Ptft 6 ei 7
Zafcl* 5 • C«ne*ntr«tlenj of Tclttllt Oritnie Ca^xujrrtt la Sell Su^ltt Collected
froe ••:: Berln«* duruvi the Oe-Sit* Croun*-W*t«r Study, Syouet Landfill,
Sye***t. *«• Yerk.
S4.rp;t 3«fl(A4tlon:
it.'rf'.t D»: §:
CbleroMthAne
Vinyl ciUerld*
Oueret-.Mnt
Heifeyltni e>..crid«
?r iefci 0 re *. -e rss* :.-.*?•.•
I,l-5ich;ere«:.-.«r.t
J.l-PichieroetsiTie
J.2-Dleh.:ero«i.i«n«
tt^oreferr
1 , 2 -S '.eh: nxe^sfts*
J.l.I-rrUJ>.:er;«;.-.»r.«
C»jbon tt:r»c.Merlec
fcl rtwtatf * e^ * e f a<1>— * ^ «^«
t ;«£<-! . 3-:.c.-.;crc;re?tnt
Tr Iehi erot thy ^tr.t
Quoroea>«a«
Telueae
Ithyl benitnc
• Xyleae
• • f Xyiioe
total VOC*
SY-« CY-f ST-*
12/14/C? 12/16/17 1/20/M
to 120 jo
<3
-------
'»«* "> ef 7
table 5 • Conetn-.rittetJ «f VolatU* Or(*ale Co^oxndi LB tell SM?l*i C«ll«et«4
. fro* Mtll Scrlivci duxla* th< Oe-Su* Cro\asi-y»t«r Study, lyeixt landfill,
Syeiict, ••• York.
Staple D«i:»rjtion:
$fc=?i« 9ttt:
:« Scpth (ft):
1Y-*
(M
120
JY-t
>M
110
««_*«.
''lIu.^t/Lroo.ihA*.
?tayl ehlorid*
Oii»Tot^h»n«
HtLhrlm* ehlcrldt
trtehlerefluerenc:hAn<
l,l-Ptehiero«th€n«
Chlerafef*
1 . 2 -Pt«^- —«—*.-»»
1 ,1 .'l-Trieh;oreet.-j.i«
Citben tatrachiariet
Ireaedlehleteoctr.cnt
tr«BJ-l.I-S;e.k.;areprep«n*
TrieilerotthTltr.t
Chleredikto»e9«-.hA.tt
1,1.2-Trieh^erecthA.i*
cXi*i 1 3*3 i6.»« o r cp rcp<^<
2"CtX^OFO4^AT • T^l' * • t A4 S
lr_fo»
Tttrteilerot i.-.tn«
QaerDb«M.A.
i!2-D!!uI"^!n!
l,*-Blc&:onb«&*(n«
».nt.n.
Ithyl k*r.s*B*
• Xylttw
. » , I^UM
tmiioc.
All t«i-i'-» -if — «d L- s'e-o
£*=•/,«« i.'^ -:<•! -^I'.-a '.'.£t?4
<5
-------
r«i« i of •
TabU 6
>rr »f Caa Mall Nonltorlna. Data at Sroaaai Landfill, Syoaaat. Nav Torh.
U.II
•Waar
C-l
C-2
C-l
C-«
C-S
C-«
C-»
C-O
C-»
C-IO
C-ll
C-ll
C-ll
C I*
C-IJ
C-l*
C-ll
6-l»
C l«
Total
Non-Nathan* •aroawtrle N
VOCa (•) Nathan* (b) »r*»*ur* <«)
>IOOO
>IOOO
0
0
0
0
>IOOO
>100«
>iooo
II
1
0
too
0
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
>iooo
>IOOO
>IOOO 10.02
>IOOO
0
12
10
J
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
20
1
4
220
0
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
>100O
>IOOO
)-!«-•/ y-im-mi .... ----»-*»-•» •--
Total Total Total
km-Nathana Oaroaatrle Non-Nathan* Oaroaatrle Non-Nathan* »«ro»atrlc
VUCa (a) Ncthana (b) Pra»*ur* (c) VOC* (a) Nathan* (b) Fiaxura (c) VOCa (a) Nalhana (! Piatiura (c)
0
>IOOO
0
0
O
0
>IOOO
2 a
0
0
0
0
0
0
>IOOO
o
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
0 10.lt
>IOOO
0
2.2
2.2
l.t
>IOOO
r
0
0
o
10
0
o
>iooo
1.0
>IOOO
>IOOO
>iooo
M
0
>IOOO
0
0
n
>IOUO
>IOOO
>IOOO
0
0
0
0
0
>iooo
20
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
22 2f 02
0
>IOOO
0
0 »
0
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
o
0
0 *
0
0
>tooo
12
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
l.» >i i».»0
0 '
0 1
• 0
0 0
0 u
o u
10 26(1
>100O »0'jn
0 '>
o u
0 0
0 0
0 O
>iooo >IO»P
>IOOO >IO«>r
>iooo >ioo<>
2* 10U
>IOOO >IOO'I
All ra*ulta raportad In part* par all I Ion
Naaiur«Mnta cm*MCtao> In tha llaM with a Canturp Sr»t*m* Nodal 110 (uppar datactlon I loll 1.000 ppa>| oc 00 (uppar dat action Unit 100.000 ppai) Or«'. Ic Vapor
*n»l»mar (OVA). lnatiu«ant« wai* callbratad uatn* a Mthana standard.
(a) Naa»uraiaanl( aiada ualn« atandard OVA probo.
<•> Naa»uraaMnta taoda u«ln« actlvatad charcoal flltar proba to abtorb non-awthan* volatile oifaiilc cu^ioundi.
local wathar aarvlc* (Coaa>u Maalhcr. Inc., rlutlilni. M.w York, or Naw*day> bafor* *aiapttn«. or fru* M.w Voik
rilaht farvlc*. lillp. Max Verb at J fm on tha day of •«^>llnl. or Iron Lon« Itland Waaihar ob*ai«ara. Nlnaola. Ma« »orb at • pai on I ha dar ol
• Cat wall daatroyad.
-------
ra(a a ai o
Fablo 6 . »!»••• l> ol C. Mall MoaiHodo* Data at Cpoaaot laiUIIII. Syoaaol. Haw Torfc.
--•-!»-•» 4-1J-OI 1-2-01 0-11-01
Total Total Total Total
U.I I ftVM. Matteo*. taroMtcIO IkM-Nathana OaroMtrtc Non-Hailtana faroMtrlc Nan-Hatk*no faroaotrlc
Hunt** «JCa <•> »*
C-l*
C-ll
C-l» . •
C-l*
u • a*, n
0 0
0 •
c •
u O
0 •
>IOOO >IOOO
>ioou >iooo
>IOOO >|OOO
200 aoo
4O 40
40 4»
o •
0 •
*IOOO >IOOO
4)0 *»0
>|000 >IOOO
2>0 2 JO
4 a*
0 *
>IOOO >|000
• 0
• 0
0 0
• o
>IOOO >IOOO
14 14
a» »»
0 O
• 0
0 0
0 0
• 0
>IOOO >IOOO
1 1
>IOOO >IOOO
• •
>IOOO >IOOO
10 . 00 0
100
0
0
o
0
2 to
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
>IOOO
20
>IOOO
100
>IUOO
0 2*. 00
100
0
0
o
0
200
0
a
0
0
0
0
o
>IOOO
li
>IOOO
100
>IOOO
0 10.14
•
•
•
0
>IOOO
0
o
•
•
0
0
•
•
o •
•
>IOOO
0
>IOOO
All rojulta r*Bo«to4 In p»rta f»t •Illlooi (ppoi).
Ifliitini iMrilt caaxluciaa t . tko »ar 4olactlon ll«lt I.OOO ppa) at 00 « a(an4af< OVA vtaao.
|>) MdaautoiB^at* a>o4o u«ln« actl«oia4 charcoal fllta* p«oba to aacotb iioo-aMihaaa volatlla afganlc taafoun4».
(c) Inchaa a.' a»rcu(r • >••<•!•»•• O»tal«a4 liaa local waatliot aaivlco (Cu^m M«all*«r. Inc.. riu»lilti«. H*w Vuik. a( ••w*4a|r) kctata aaofillnc. or fro* New Tork
ril|ht Scrvlca. !•< •».. •••«• York at ) p» on llto dap at •MVllna. a« itum Lun. lalaiHl V».all..( obaarvat*. Nlnaala. Mao Tork al a |PO> on I ha 4ar ol »*o«illi«.
' Cat vail
-------
«*
Tabla 6 . SIMM.; >« Caa Wall NaaUtorli* Date »t S»«aa«t taoJfltl. Syvaaat, ••«
Hall
Mua*ar
C-l
C-l
C-l
c-*
C-l
C-A
C 1
C-ft
C JO
C-ll
C II
C 11
C-l*
C-ll
ft-l*
C-II
C-lft
G-l«
Tot* I fatal
VUCa <*) NatkaiM lftftft
ft ft
0 ft
0 ft
ft ft
>iuoo >iooft
0 >IOOO
0 A
ft ft
a a
0 •
a • a
o •
ft »•
o ft
0 •
0 •
It >IOOO
ft,
a than* <»> ft.
.
>iooa
•
•
•
•
>IOOO
>IOOO
ft
•
0
•
ft
Aft
ft
ft
0
>IOOO
• luaMirlc Non Halhana
aaau«a (c| VOCa (al 1
2».*0 ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
1
>IOOO
2ft
ft
•
ft
•
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
•a ro.
0
ft
0
ft
0
1
>IOOO
11
a
0
•
0
•
ft
ft
ft
o
ft
o
...... .. 10-22 -ftr
fatal
Mtclc Mon-Matkana ••«aan<(lc
<(• (c) VOCa (a> Mathaa* (k> Piaaaura Ic)
10.1' ft )*.*!
IftOO
ft
ft
ft
ft
2000ft
1
ft
•
ft
•
>
1ft
•
1000
ft
*
All *». It- ccitoitad \n p*rl* f»* •Illlon
H»*»uc*Mnt* cr*i d.l«ctloo Hall IOO.OOO rfM| O(«*nlc Vapor
* (• «k»oefc nao-iMtliM» valaill*
|c> lnc(t«* •! j>»(cu>.<. fta«4l««* •fet*lM4 I torn local v««tlMC •«c»lc« (Co^u W««tl«c. Inc.. lluililiti. M«« »o«S>. or N«u«4af| »«io(« •••pllnc, or (rwt M*« Vock
ril«hl S«:«lc«. > •M^iltn*. 01 liu* Luil( l»l»»a W«atli«i u»»«i»»i». Hlitaola, Mow »oifc at * pat on tlta
» Cat wall d»»l ««>(•...«.
*" C«c wall ivi ••••til Kltad.
(,| UACIII V^MII II M INI'
-------
r*** •
T*klo 6.
C.*
Dot* ot Sr*«M
Nuakor
C-l
C 2
£-1
C 4
C-J
C *
c-»
CO
c-»
C-IO
C-ll
C 12
C-ll
I 14
CD
C-l*
i; it
C 10
C-IP
•-----•*-*-»»--»-..
Man-N*ii.' • •«,
VUC* <*.) MtthMM (k) Pro
0
>iooooo
a
o
0
o
>looIOOOOO
•• 30000
tt
*
0
«
0
40
*
>IOOOiH<
*•,
t
"• IZ-I4-B/ ---IJ-2J-OJ I2-2V-0/ -T
Total Total Total
tm>»ttt* Mua-n>lli«ao 0»ro«M«rlc Hon M*tk*iw 0*rao»trlc Hon-M*f hMM •*ra*wirlc
••**• (*l VOC* (•) Notbcn* (k) fr**»u<* (c) VUC* (•) M*lh«n« (k) Protturo (c) VOC* (•) ft*llun« (k) Pro**ur« |c)
«.»• 0 2».iO 0 10.1* 10 2».ll
> 100000 > 100000 >|00000
• 0 O
• 0 0
0 00
• • 0
M > 100000 > 100000
• > 100000 >IOOOOO
• •• > 100. 000 >IOOOOO
• 0 0
• ' •• 0
000
• •• •
0 0 0
0 0 40000
• • •
22000 >l OOOUO 1000
JO iUOt IOOO
• * •
o< 00
d«i«cll.
Nno»u(«Mn(« c«mlucc«4 .» lh« II«M vltk • Cvnlurf Sf«tM» No4ol 110 (uppcf d«l«cllon ll«ll 1.000
(OVA). !••! r>w^.»l • •»•«• «»llor«lo4
Nosuuroownt* *o4o !••(»• •IMdoctf OVA
H*»nu««M»li m*4» utint cctlvoto^ cbatcaol lolno4 ttfm locol v**lh«r **«»l£* 4Ca»|>u W«*ilMr, Inc . HioMitf. H»w (uik. or N*i«d*r) •>•(•>»• Mwplliig. or fraa N*H Turk
Suiv c«, l*llp. How lork *I t p* OM tho d*» ol **«pllii«. or f(u» lon« I*|*IM| W**ili*r ol»*i««n. Hln*ol*. H*w Toik *i o p* MI the 4*r ol
(•IKA( ill IV. .>
-------
Taklo 6
if of CM Mill Maallodo* Data •( Byoaaat LaMo'flll. »>oaaal. *•«•
Total Total
Muaoac VOCa (•) Maiho** (•) PcoaaMf* 4*1 WCa (a) Halhana <•) f«<
C-l 0 M.2* •
C-2 >l*OO4M> > I*OOO*
«-» • •
C-4 • 1
C-» • 1
6-» • J*
C-l > 1*000* > |OOO*0
C • > 100*00 20*
c » >ioeoo* > 100000
C-IO • •
C-ll • •
C 11 • •
t-l> • 1
C I* • l»
C l> > 10000* «0
C-14 • •
C U 100* 14000
C-l* 10*0 «0*
C-l* ' • •
-)•-•• .-.- .- 1-2''** ...-....-
Total Total
• (OMKU Mon-Hathaoo *a(oaalcle Hon-Mathaoa *a(OMI(lc
• ••«0 12 >IOOOOO Jt.tJ • 0 10. 4*
>IOOOOO « «
• • O .
0 • •
• • 0
• • 1
> 10000* is *
>IUUUUO I) )
>tooooo >ioooo* >ioooot
• • 0
0 • 0
0 «S 0
• 2* 1
• 0 )
> 100000 S 0
• • a
>IOOOOO • 10
10 0 10
a a «.
All loiuli* iff011*4 In >a(t« por •tiltoai (p|M>).
Haa*»foa»M« coooucta4 l« Ik* Ilal4 «•!«• a CaMury &r»««-« Ho-.I II* |u(.|>ar a«l«ctlon ll«lt I.OOO p|M» 01 •• (u|ipar daiactlan Italt IOO.OOO ffm) Ofa>»tc
Analfiar (OW/.|. loatruaanta Nor« callkfatad u>li%« a owtltau* »l»iMl»id.
tat l4aa»u(oiMnta •>••• uainf, a«a«4ai4 U«« f (aba.
(») Maa»u>aoania awda ualna ac(l«ato4 clta(caal tlltar acob* to tbiaik »o» m«cli«ti« valailla ui«anlc to^iu«.«id«
(c) Euchai ..-I mmicuft. Maadlno* ablaliM' I«M local »••!!>•( taivlca (Cu^>u W«»il>«<. Inc.. l'l»>kli>«. M«» «oih. 01 IUu»4trl k«|oia >ao|>ll««. O( llum H«w «u( Sa(vlca. l»»»o. How Vo(h at > |Mi on Ilio o*r »< •«-fll«a. •»« lioia I una lilanil M««ili«i ol»«(va<>. Hliiaola. M«« «»,» a> * fm un ilia 4»r at »n>|il lua.
• €.« vail r«o.
IK INt
-------
Tablo 6. fmarr •« Gaa Mail NwiUafin* Bat* •( Cpoaaat Laarfflll. iyoaaol. Maw Vorh.
t-it'M a-a«-«* I-I-M i-t*-**
Total Total Total Total
Mall tao-Halbana OaroaMtflO Mo*-MathaM OaroMtrlc Mon-Matbana OaroMlrle Hon-Nalkauo Oaraawjirlc
Nwa*or VOCa (a) M*tM*« Ib) r«aaaura <•) «OCa 4a> Malhaoa 4k) fraaaur* (c| VOC, (a) Hal liana 4k) »fa**ura (•) VOC« (a) Nalbaoa (b) fraaawra (c)
c-i • o !•. ia • • 30.01 • • M.a* too 1*0 a*.4i
c-a >i*ooo* »l*o*o* >1*0*0* >i*uooo >ioooo* <100000 «iooooo * »0 • • It 10
C-t* ,.aa .a a.
C-|l > IOO*0* >I*OOOO MO 400 1)00* 2>OOO >IOOOOO < 100000
C-l* 0 0 I OOOO* I*** >l*000* >IOOOO* > I OOO*0 a>).
HaaauraaMAt* con4ui:lo4 !• tka Ilol4 wltk a C.nlury Syataoi* Hod. I II* (u|.|.ar dalactlon llailt I.OOO |i|Mi) u. •• (upaac 4alactlM> I tail I 1*0.000 BB») Or«a.il>: Vapor
Analyiaf 4OV«). IntlruaMnla wato callbrata* ualat a aMiliaiia >l«i«la«J.
ta| HaacufaMata *a4o ualn* ata»4a(4 OVA pi aba.
(•I Naa>u»aMiita aa4a »•»•>• actl«ala4 charcoal Illlat proba to absorb uoii-Miliana vulailla o<.anlc cu^.aui.4*
la) I«ctn» ol Mrcurp. Haadlna* oblolna^ liam local waalhar aatvlca |<:«, M«w Vuik. or M«w*4ayl balora *a^ill»«. or ilu» »«« Vack
karvlco. Icllp, Maw lark at » pa> on tba 4ay ol •MV||II>, «i lino l.»»a I«|»IH| N«aili«< ub>«»v«i>. Hlnaula. Mait loib at 4 poi oo ilia
-------
T«kl« 6
f £•• Mail MMllMtno Itet* •*
LwtltU. »>•••••. *••• Vaik.
-14-M
4-2J •§
S-U-00
»-U ••
(k)
M.II
Ioi« I
Mat-t
VOC»
f»i»l
Hwt-M*tlt»M
MIC* <•!
ft •••»••
Total
NIOOO
>IOOO
•
•
•
•
)
0
O
•
•
•
•
1200
ISOO
•
0
t
•
*M
1200
0
>IOO(MM>
•
•
•
*
1200
MO
•
•
*
•
0
0
100
1200
>• 12
10.
•
0
0
o
>IOOOOO
o
«
200
0
*
0
0
0
•
>iooouo
>looooo
>|OOOOO
0
o
0
0
>IOOOOO
o
*
0
0
•
0
0
0
•
>IOOOOO
>|OUOOO
0
>l«0000
a
O
•
0
o
o
•
o
o
•
*
>I00000
0
>I00000
o
o
0
0
>IOOOOO
o
*
o
o
•
o
0
o
•
> 100000
10. M
1 1*1 1 1.000
ur •* ("f(>«» 4«(*ctlan I !•»* 10O.OOO
O(»*»l> V.por
All (•uul«» rkfM>it«d In »»(• f*r •lltlan
M.»ui*»»t« coa4uct*4 !• tlM lt«»4 Milk • Cxituif ifXMM Ho4«l 110 |u|it»«c
«a*ly«ac «f4 O¥A prak*.
*w4* tulno •ell»«l«4 chsrco*! Illlac piak« «• »b«oik nu« ••tlicii* vol«lll« ai«»nlc c>»^>u,..-l t
lncti»» at •«(Cu«r- •••4I*«* •k(«lA«4 llu* laccl «• •!»>•( ••i«l<* !.<(. liu: , »lu.l.ln(. M«w Koik. or H«»»l*r) k«fai« ••^tllim. *i ((UB How lui
*«>"Wlc«. lillp. H«w V»fk •» i P" an ll>« 4*y ai •MylliHi. »« lioa Loin lilaud W«»l»f »!•••(«•<•, «li>«ol«, M*w Tutk «t 4 p* •» >!>• ! I •>•.
,l KA(,IH Vv^
I U INC
-------
fakta 6. r ii i iry •< Ca* Malt MaaltarlB* Dal a at »••••( Laoallil. fir*aaal. *•« »•«••
I-J«-M
• !• M
Mall
T««»t
Noo-MailtaM
VOCa (•»
ft«ra
fatal
t(|a Ma«-Naifeaaa
Bai
Tool
tdc Ma«-Maiha»a
• (C) «OC» (•»
t»t
II-4-M****
Talk I
m* Haaj-Natlua*
«) *OC« <•) M»llMM (»
(c)
6-1
6-1
6-»
6-4
It.**
*•.•*
1M
>IOOO
>IOOO
It
> 10041
0
Ifttt*
IMft
c •
6-10
6-11
e-it
6-i>
6-1)
6-1*
6-1*
C-lt
2*
a
>IOOO
>IOOO
>IOOO
>1000
t
BO
>100*
ft
>2000
21
A
J»
1 •
0
>IOOO
10
2*
41
>IOO«
»I«00
All
In
In
(OVA),
wl(k • Ccalurr Sf»l»«» Htxl*! !!• (M|i|>«r
»i*4 u»tuf •
OVA ptak*.
Hull 1.000 |>|MI| 01 •• (upycr 4«l«cllan it«lt
Oi» .l
fllt«r pruli* to •l»«ifc n«»-i
•! ••rcutf. •••4ln«« •bt»ln*4 !>•• local >»«ih*i ••ivlc* (CU^IM Woiliar, Inc.. ri««lil««. N«M Totfc. at H»w*d>») ••lorn »»»ai||n«, of •««• M«M
Sarvlc*. l»l»r, M«w f««h •«!»••« tfca 4«r »< *Miytl»«. «« |C>M> luii* l»l«ut W»*th«( »»>••«••>. Hli.aol*. H«« Io«fc «t «(!••« ||,« day u|
• C** wall 4a*lf«r«4.
»•• Cuulit not locaia awnltar ••• wall.
•*•• >•« I !<«<•* (Ita OVA aaia« waul 4 »«i «!»• accuiaia ••• abuva 2UUO |>|>«.
(c)
-------
?*|t 1 el i
tibU 7 . Cone»ntr«tlanj of »oI«tU« Ot|«nU Compound* U C4i SM^!** C*U««t«4
.*«•
Vinyl eXlond*
Cfcleraitf.*.-!*
Mtttiyltn* eiC*r;d«
TriehJ.a?eiluo««:h»n«
l.l-Sle.w.:ore«th*n«
1 . :-Die."Uorot-.h*n»
1.2-3ie.k.;.ero«ti«n»
Cilereiera
1.2-:;ch:oro.th**.
Carter. cttr»cr..cr;a«
J""j!!*i!^!;:n""ltr
*
Triers ?o«t.-.ri«st
O.: erad i srossa* -.hint
!;!:!:!.':!it-.';:^..
Iressfers
1, 1 . J.2-T*-. r»^;:.ero«t>^.-.«
?« t r»s>.; sre» :.-.tr.«
O.;ere5«.-.»«.-.«
l.J-Jlei-.ls.-sstr.jiS*
l^-Jie.'.leiibtr.it.-.t
}.4-euhi«;ea*r^tr.«
>.yl btr.stai
• Xy;«nt
• • p Xyica*
Tottl VOC»
L: 5-2
1: 7/7/47
i: 10.02
<2
<100
>400
>400
110
*
•
ss
1»
t
<4
<2
<2
<4
7
<2
<*
»2*
C-2
l/2t/M
2f.««
n
well v»» e»t iMa^ltd duxtrv* tht first iwipliac rvuMl (July Ifl?).
ttff'.tt «tr» cc.ltet*e frac »«ll» durin« th* *»e*nd reuzkd (April Kit) t* rtpltt* v«ll*
»inet th» fiut »«splt
t?crtd bttwct?. tittt *n
tc'.nvd • «a*;i *ac;ust »f tritbi»r»f luotooBthAft* . IT* »twU«rd VM run *• thl»
could net »« q-i*.-.tifttd .
iarsaitric ?r»uirti v*;» eittin** fre« th* fc»n« It land Wt»thtt Obxrvtr*. Min*el», H«» Y»ik
of mtrs-iry »t tbeut i p* «»eh 4«y.
Ar-wrv ^
i PP ivr
-------
I'M* 2 ft J
t«*l« 7. Conetncratler.j o/ »ol«uia Organic Cotapouada la C«a Saapltt C*>liaetad
fro* S«:*ctad C«a KesitariAi, «*ll« dur'.ac cb« fubaurfaca 64f Study,
*>0**«t lawful. f;o«iat. ••* r»rk.
J*.T?:t 3iali.r..4ofid«
Triehlaref I uooj* :A«.i<
2.1-0lchiaroath*»a
l,l-Cl«.k.:oro«:.^»n«
1.2-Cie.k.^ara«:A«a«
Chlarafan
1.2-Cie>.;»r9t:h»nt
l.l.l-frle.^eretiAt.ia
Carbtjn t«:r»e>.:er:d«
Iroaadteh.lorcww :.-.*.-.*
:.2-Oleh:ere?.-i?«.-.»
tr«aj-1.3-3:e.k,;ere?r9?fr.«
Trlehiarattnritn*
CM arad i S r aeaa*. : !-j.it
i,1.2-Tric.'-.;erstt.-.*nt
iU-l,3-5se.w.:arepr8?t:ia
2-ChJerot;.':y. vi.-f: t;.-.tr
Iraajajfar*
l,1.2,2-T»Tras-.:areatJuR«
Tatraehl are* :han«
CXlarebtr.it.ia
1 . J-Oleh^ersS«r.itr,t
1.2-rieh:ere5«-tt-:«
1 .4-Oje>..ersst.-_nr.t
teas an*
r«iH«id>
Itftyl btr.ttna
• Xjitnt
<2
<100
>400
<2
110
<*
<4
<4
<4
11
<4
<2
<2
-------
3 o/ i
-. :sc» of »»l«tilt Or|*ale Canpavmd* Ui J»> !«^i*i C«ll«et*d
fro* S«;*et»d £41 Realtor to* Well* duriS4 the Su£*urf4et C«* iii
laadflll, Sro>*«t, ••» T»rk.
Sae?.* Dti unman:
Cat* Saa?ltd:
OitSl«ra
T r i *H' a r o •> 1 '^ OM * h&na
1*2*0* ftK* oraftjtt^a
l..-5ieh:ero»-..-.*-i*
J.2-Bie.k.:ero«-.h«n«
QUarafani
1 .2-5iehiera*-.>.an«
:.l.l>:r:eh:ero*:.w.*.t*
Carbar. tttr»«Mar;dt
Ir ;nei . c>.. c rs.-s* -..-.an*
i.2-JleJUeTs5rs?ui«
tra.-.«-l , 3-:: t.'.c.-eprsptn*
Tt:ei.;8rof..-.T-t->«
Cfc.oro«:i.-53oe«;.-.»n«
1.1 , 3-Tr le^-.orst *..-.4.*>a
eii-1 . > -lish.; a rey T sp*r.«
2-S'.:ore»-..-i7: vir.T. t^htr
Iraaefars
1 .l,2.2-T*tr»e>.:era«;hant
Tttr«c>.:ere»-.-.«r.«
Chlorebtr.itn*
1 , 3-:.,er.lerebtr.»*?.«
1 .2-!.e.-.;ersS*.-.i«r.t
l,t-Eieh.;eres«rjtna
Btr^in*
te'.j.nt
I-..-.T. b«r.t«i«
• X7i*n«
• * > ^"w
T«-..: t«.
7/1/1? 1/24/U 7/17 l/2«/l(
SO. 1J 24.11 39 IS
<2
<2
<2
<4
<4
<4
«4
<4
•
<4
<2
<2
<2
<4
<4
<2
<2
<4
<4
net §*flpl«4 during th« flrit »*=pUB4 round (July 1»|7).
Su=p.ti ««i« ee:;«et«d frac v«U» dutlrvj tha i«ean4 reuad (April llll) t* ftpUe* «•!!•
d*i;re*»d ti.net tti* fittt ttaf'.lMt rttmd.
•• W«;i> ««k-.:e7»e k*:«**B I'.ti'. utd tteend iu?lLivt roundi .
••• l4f9a*:nc prmurn ««rt e::«l.itd fro* the ton* I«l*.-vi W«ath«r Ob»«r*«r». Min»ol«, Irv York:
lo inehci «5 Mrcur? 4t
GER.AGHTV e NOLLER. INC.
-------
t*»r» 7. e«M*ntr«tien« •/ »«I«tiJ« Organic Compound* L0 £«« S«api«f C«il«et«d
from S«J*ct*d C«» Koruc»rta« V«ll« durtaa UM fuk»ur/»ei CA* feudr.
ff«f»«t L«n4/ill, fr««t, 0«v Tart.
i«pi. 9..1.MM.*, 6-1. C-l
« C-1T 6-J» S-li 6-11
S*t* tuffltf: 7/I/J7 1/14 ?/>/!? • /2»/M 7/1/1? i/2*/M
••• lirsa«:ne Prtuurf. 30. U
2» «T 2» •* 10.13 2* «•
szsr
BleW»rodt/J-o»«:Jun»
Vinyl cJU«n*«
ChlorMtJua*
K*th?Jcn« chi»rld«
friend •ro^uoOTthta*
l.l-Dlehi§r»«th«n«
1 , 1 -Bi «hi «r o» : h«nt
1 .2*C!c&lora«t&«aii
C*.l*rofora
2.2-Bltfcio?«»;.>ufl«
2 . 1 . 2-*(i«&«ro«th*ii»
e«rb*;t t«tr*c-.:»ri««
1 rM»« ; «!*.! e r am t .*.«.•»•
:,J-Cle>.:ere?re?4.i»
traftj'l. J-Jie.Mer sprepcn*
Trl«t:o.-o«;hr;«n«
a; »r»« l S r aeoa* ; f.tfit
I,1.2-*;ieh:ers«t.t«n«
«i»-: .-;ie>.;ere?rep«n«
J-OJ»ro«-..iy. Tir.y. «t.i«r
l.-p«e/or=
1.1 ,2, J-Tttr«e.-.;ero«:.-.*.i«
r«tr«eh:8.-o»:.-.«.it
OCoribtr.o.it
1 . 1-Ctc.M ereb«r.ttnc
2 1 2*6*ehl B?sbc*xv^t
2 > 4»Pic**ifl?oA€rj400
•• <2
•• J4
•• <4
•• <4
•• <4
•• <4
•• 5
•• <4
•• <2
•• <2
•• <2
•• <4
•• <*
•• <2
•• <2
•• <4
•• <4
•• <4
•• <4
•• <4
•• 5
•• <2
•• <4
•• <4
•• <4
•• It
•• 120
•• 20
•• 55
•• 4J
«
<1
•' ktlllm (ppfc).
l«« *.-.*:rtf< u»i.M VSr?A H«-.h»«» «01, «62 >
Y»rk.
• »«t ».-.«;rt»i. »«« v«U v«* n«t <4ap2«4 4urin< th« flrtt (uipltn* r«un4
S«apit* vtrt ct'.ltetti fr« »»ili duriA4 th» <««an4 round (April l»il) t* r«pl«M w«ll*
fine* th* fin* tteflifit f»uad.
itra*td b*:v«tc firtt Mid **e«nd •M*!ln« r»uod».
:c prtuvtrtt v«r» eSt»ir>»d fra« tb« Lra« I»:««d w*«tb«r Ok*«r««r«.
lit l.ieh<*
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMIT Of AMtfflCM MSUUI
Arvtnle
••rlui
line
••••-Oututral F«lr«ct*bU CM
-------
S »i J
7.
II, Syo»*,t. »«* V«rk.
jiti
••• liroBttrie
JO.l)
6-1*
Trip
19. »7
a2.r~.ttan. <2
IraaoMtrun* <5
8ieMoro..:rae«-..'~wv« <2
l,2-Cle.1>.:ere?.-cp«.it <4
truu-1 . 3-3:e.*..ere;r;?«n« <4
Trlehitrot-.Sr-tn* <2
O.l»ro«;tr90oo«-..-j^» <2
1.1. J-Trie.-.;erot-..-.*.-it <4
eiJ-1.3-:;e-.:ers»reptr.« <4
2-O— etati.'-.y; visy. «tn*t <4
lra**fert <4
l,:,a,2-Tt-.r«:>.:erot:X«.i« <4
Ttir»t"i»r»tt.-.tr»« 12
OUoroSt.-.it.i* <2
:,J-5le.k.:eraS«r.jtn« <4
l.J-S:eMers;«r.itr.« <4
l,*-Cl.eiuatc5«ratr.« <4
ttattnt J5
7olu«n« 210
Ithyi btr.ita. 23
• Xyi«n« 70
• » > Xyltn. 49
T«t»l VQCt 4*«
** <2
»* <2
••
te intA«i ef Mrcury «t «*««t 4 pa
GER.AGHTY
-------
TABLE 9
POTENTIAL HICIUTION PATHWAY AND EXPOSURE ROUTE EVALUATION
rOTENTIAL
HICIUTION
rATHUAV
fOTENTIAL
EXPOSURE
•OUT!
IS fOSSULE RECEPTORS
ROUTE ON-SITE ELEMENTAL! OFF-SITE ON-SITE ECOLOGICAL/
POSSIRLEt UOUCIS STUDENTS RESIDENTS TRESPASSERS ENVIRONMENTAL
All
MOUND-KATE!
• VOC INHALATION
TES
rUtLIC HELL*
INOUSTmiAL HELLS
• INCESTION
• DERMAL CONTACT
• VOC INHALATION (HOUUUNC
• INCESTION
• DERMAL CONTACT
YES
IES
TES
tES
TES
X
I
X
X
X
X
NOTES i
EVALUATION RASED ON CURRENT CONDITIONS AND AVAILARILITT OP ADEQUATE DATA
• - EXPOSURE ROUTES EVALUATED IN THIS ENDANCERHENT ASSESSMENT
-------
TABLE 10
CAIOJUUON Of NONCAaCIMOCfNIC SUBCMBOKIC HAZARD IMDEI
SCNOOUNIlDRtM
CNCNICAt
Arsenic
•arlun
line
•entane
INMAIAUON
RfD
MA
I.OOE-01
MA
MA
HI
MA
MA
MA
MA
MAI
RfD
I.OOE-OS
VOOC-02
2.001-01
MA
HI
2.1IE«00
I.MC'tl
i.we-oi
MA
S.OK-02 2.80f-02 2.00C-OI 2.I7E-05
Cklorofonn MA MA 1.0«-02 2.10E-02
N«lliyl«nt Oilorldt «.5nt 01 4.21E-04 A.OOf-02 4.85£-04
•(•|2-ClliylMjirl)MillMlUt« MA MA 2.001-02 1.99C-02
IctradilortMlhcM MA MA t.OOf-OI 2.2M-OJ
loluMM 2.00f«00 2.2SE-04 4.00E-OI 7.2/1-05
IrlckloriMtlMm MA MA MA MA
Vinyl CMorlite MA MA MA MA
N«>*rd lnde«: 2.8/1-02 Mai*rd Intel: I.61E«00
MA - Mot available or not appl(cable
-------
TABLE I OB
CALCU.AIION Or CHRONIC HA/AMI INOEH
SCNOOlCNItDIIEN
INHAIAIION ORAL
CMENICAl
RfD HI KfD HI
ATMfilC NA MA I.OOC-01 1.17C-OI
•arlua 1.006-04 MA S.OOC-02 I.87E-02
line MA MA 2.00C-OI I.Ut-02
••niCM MA MA MA MA
Cklorotenicm 5.00C-OJ 9.96C-OI 2.00E-02 (.tOE-OI
Cklorofora NA MA t.OOE-02 1.A9C-0]
Ntthylmt CfcloHdt 8.5/t-OI I.VIt-05 A.OOi-02 S.OK-04
•U(2-flMI>*iiyl)nillwUtf NA MA 2.006 02 I.atf-0]
l«tr*ctilor
-------
TABLE IOC
CALCUtAIION Of AMR I MONCAICINOGENIC SIMCHIONIC NA2AHD INDICES
INM1AIION WAI
CNENICAL
HtD HI RfD HI
Aramlc M HA 1.MK-M 7.MC-01
••Hut 1.00C-01 MA S.OOf-02 S.54E-02
line HA MA 2.00C-OI l.Wf-OI
••mm* MA MA MA MA
ChlorobMUMW S.MK-02 2.04E-02 2.00E-OI 7.We-04
Chlorofora MA MA 1.00C-02 7.J5I-OJ
N«lhyl
-------
TABLE 101)
CALCULAIIOM Of MMJtl CHRONIC HAZARD INOEK
INHAIAIION MAL
CHfHICAl
RID HI RtD HI
Arsenic MA NA I.OOt 01 4.19C-02
••HUB 1.00E-04 NA S.OOE 02 6.721-01
IlK MA NA 2.00C 01 J.99E-01
•enicne NA NA NA NA
CMorobenicm 5.00E-OJ «.l/t-OJ 2.00C-02 I.VU-M
Oil or of om KA NA I.OOE-02 6.05C-M
Itothyltra CM or life 8.57E-01 1.S2E-OS e.OOE-02 1.1U-04
•U(2-EtMlMiiyl)riillMl*t« NA NA 2.00E-02 1.58E-01
Utr*cMoro«lh«fM NA NA I.OOE-02 A.81E-04
|«|UMW 2.00E»00 J.ME 05 I.OOE-01 2.17E-OS
trUMorocthtn* NA NA NA NA
Vinyl Oilorld* NA NA NA NA
Naiard Inden: B.42E-01 H«i«rd Indei: 5.5K-02
Note*: NA • Not available or not applicable
-------
TABLE HA
RISK ESIINAICS H* CARCINOGENS
SCMOOtCNItMEM
CHEMICAL
Artanlc
tar lift)
line
•ontont
Chlorobtnitnt
Cfclorofoni
NethylMM Chlorlda
OU(2-Ethylk««yl>f1ilhatata
fotrachlorotlhom
lolutM
Irlchloroathent
Vinyl Cfclorlda
E«po*ura
Rout a
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Potency factor
t/
1.00000
S.OOE«OI
NA
NA
NA
HA
2.90E-02
2.MK-02
HA
MA
A. 1(K -01
0. IOC 02
7.MK-01
4.70E-07
1.*0t-02
HA
5. IDE -02
5.ME-OJ
NA
MA
I.10E-02
1.70E-02
2.)0(«00
2.9SE-01
total Upper Roml Risk <
Route- total
Specific Chealcal-cfMClflc
RUk Risk
1. 971 -OS
MA
NA
HA
NA
MA
3. 7HI. -00
4.IJE-00
HA
NA
9.60 09
1.211-07
1. Ill) 00
9.2« 11
1.0U 07
HA
9.0/t 00
HA
HA
MA
1.701 -00
NA
4. on* -0&
I.KE-Oa
•
1.
MA
MA
1.
MA
1.
1.
1.
9.
MA
1.
J.
2.
971-05
HE -OS
JOE -or
JOE-00
OK -or
ore -OB
TOE -08
I4C-OA
5JE-05
NA - Not available or not applicable
-------
TABLE HB
RISK ESTIMAIES lOt CARCINOGENS
AOULIS
CHEMICAL
Arsenic
Rarlua
line
Reniene
CMorobcmcne
Chloroform
Methylcne Chloride
Rle(2-E thylheiiyl Mtithalale
fatrachloroethene
toluene
tricolor oetkene
Vinyl Chloride
Cipoeure
Route
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Potency factor
1/<«a/kg/day>
I.ROC«00
VOQE«OI
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.90E-02
2.VOE-02
NA
NA
6. IOC -01
8. lOt 02
7. SOt -OS
4.7W-07
1. tOt -02
NA
V 10t -02
i.JOf OJ
NA
NA
I.IOE-02
I.7UE-02
2.)0f*00
2.9SE-OI
total Upper Round Risk •
Route- total
Specific Chealcal -•pacific
Rick Risk
2.VIE-OS
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
5. 5 vi -08
J.5/f-Ofl
NA
NA
1.4U-Ofl
2.411 07
t.vic-oa
2.2HF-I2
i.sut-o/
MA
I.1U 07
2.16t-08
NA
NA
2. 3 It -08
I.04C-08
5.VU-OA
A.7VE-07
•
2
NA
MA
1
HA
2
1
1
1
MA
)
a
J
.•IE-05
.I2E-07
.55E-07
.91C-M
.iOE-07
.SAc-or
.SiE-08
.5VE-M
.65E-05
Moles: MA - Not available or not applicable
-------
TABLE 12
Federal ARARa For The Syosset Landfill Superfund Site
TYPE
Chemical-Specific
Action-Specific
Action-Specific
STATUS
Applicable
Applicable
ARARa
Clean Air Act
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
CAA §109, 42 U.S.C.
§7409
Clean Air Act
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
CAA §109,42 U.S.C.
§7049
Monitoring and Inspec- Relevant &
tion; closure and post- Appropriate
closure care of
landfills, 40 C.F.R.
§§264.303 & 264.310
promulgated pursuant
to Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act, Subchapter Ill-
Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment
REQUIREMENT
Remediation technologies
that could release con-
taminants to the air
will be designed to meet
the NAAQS standards.
Remediation technologies
that could release con-
taminants to the air
will be designed to meet
their standards.
This Regulation outlines
specific requirements
for closure and post-
closure of Solid Waste
Management Facilities.
-------
TABLE 13
Mew York State ARARs For the Svoaset Landfill
Superfund Site
TYPE
Chemical-Specific &
Action-Specific
ARAR3
New York State Air
Guide-1. Guideline for
the Control of Toxic
Ambient Air Contaminants
9/89 - printing
STATUS
Applicable
REQUIREMENT
Remediation technologies
that could release con-
taminants to the air
will be designed to meet
these standards.
Action-Specific
New York State Department
of Environmental Conser-
vation, Division of Solid
Waste. Solid Waste Manage-
ment Facilities Requirements
(6 NYCRR Part 360)
Relevant &
Appropriate
This Regulation outlines
specific requirements
for closure and post-
closure of Solid Waste
Management Facilities.
-------
TABLE 14
SYOSSET LANDFILL
ALTERNATIVE 2A - 6 NYCRR PART 360 REGULATIONS
LOW PERJCABILITY SOIL CAP
COST ANALYSTS
1. SITE PREPARATION
- Demolition* removals, renovations
2. SITE WORK
- Drainage structures & piping, recharge
basin expansion, landscaping, etc.
3. GAS VENTING SYSTEM
- gas vent risers. Interconnecting
piping & crushed stone backfill
CAP SECTION:
Excavation
Clean Fill
Filter Fabric
Gas Venting Layer
Clay (1x10 "7 on/s) 97,400 CY
65,500 CY £$ 3.00/CY
105,400 CY 6 25.00/CY
338,825 CY
64,955 CY
ASPHALT PAVEMENT COURSE
• 3W Top Course, 8"
12" Subbase Cour
SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL'
CONTINGENCIES (125
- Engineering Admlnf
rse.
atlon, Legal
PRES
($280,
malntena
ated Contingencies
AL 04M COSTS
cap repalr and
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS
PRESENT
WORTH COST
345,000
87,000
S 15,246,000
$ \196,5$0
2,63*<000
1,440,000
2,208,500
8.776.000
515,246,000
S 5,110,000
$ 24,223,000
$ 6.056.000
$ 30,279,000
$ 2.641.000
$ 32*920,000
NOTE
1. The expected accuracy of Feasibility Study Cost Analyses 1s +50 percent
to - 30 percent (USEPA, 1988a).
2. The cost analysis for ttils alternative 1s sensitive to the current costs
for 1x10 ~7 on/sec clay, clean fill and asphalt.
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2B - 6 NYCRR ' pJflT 360 RESJLATIONS
GEOSYNTHETIC *€»€RANE CAP
COST AMAI YSTS
ITEM
PRESENT
WORTH COST
1. SITE PREPARATION
- Demolition, removals* renovations
2. SITE WORK
• Drainage structures & piping, recharge
basin expansion* landscaping* etc.
3.- GAS VENTING SYSTEM
- gas vent risers* Interconnecting
piping & crushed stone backfill
4. CAP SECTION:
Excavation
Clean Fill
Filter Fabric
Gas Venting Layer
29,835 CY g$ 3.00/CY
202,380 CY 6 25.00/CY - $
508,235 SY 9 4.25/SY « 2,1
64,955 CY JS4.00/CY » 2.208,500
00
Geosyntfretlc Membrane 169.455 S.
5. ASPHALT PAVEMENT COURSES
- 3" Top Course, 8" Base^ Course*
12" Subbase Course
SUB-TCTAL CAPITAL
CONTINGENCIES (
- Engineering
Fees & Related
TOTAL/CAPITAL
762.500
10,280*000
tion. Legal
gencies
AL 04M COSTS
cap repair and
lance),
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS
$10.280,000
$ 5.110.000
$19*257*000
$ 4.813.000
$24.070.000
$ 2.0B8.00Q
$26.158*000
HQIE
1. The expected accuracy of Feasibility Study Cost Analyses 1s +50 percent to
- 30 percent (USEPA* 1988a).
2. The cost analysis for this alternative Is sensitive to the current costs
for geosyntiietic membranes, clean fill and asphalt.
-------
TABLE 14
SYOSSET L.ANDFTLL
ALTERNATIVE 2C - 6 NYCRR PART 360 REGULATIONS
LOW PERMEABILITY ASPHALT CAP
COST .ANALV5T5
PRESENT
WORTH COST
1. SITE PREPARATION
• Demolition* removals* renovations
2. SITE WORK
- Drainage structures <& piping* recharge
basin expansion* landscaping* etc.
3. GAS VENTING SYSTEM
- gas vent risers* Interconnecting
piping & crushed stone backfill
,000
4. CAP SECTION:
13,500 CY
271,780 CY
169,410 SY
70,350 CY
Excavation
Cl.ean Fill
Filter Fabric
Gas Venting Layer
(Subbase Course)
Asphalt Base Course 37,650 CY
Asphalt Top Course 28,600 TON § 7
SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL
CONTINGENCIES (I
- Engineering
Fee>-4->Sel a ted
0 3^00/CY » S 40JSOO
6*794,500
720,000
,392,000
1*001*500
2.165.OOP
$13*113,000
000
$ 135,000
$ 13,113,000
Adm1
Con
tlon, Legal
ngendes
COS\TS
$ 16,980,000
S 4.245.OOP
$ 21*225*000
$ 2.OOP.OOP
$ 23,225,000
1. The expected accuracy of Feasibility Study Cost Analyses 1s +50 percent to
• 30 percent (USEPA* 1988a).
2. The cost analysis .or tils f.l ternat.ve is sensitive to the current costs
for low psmeabll 1ty asphalt and e'ioan fill.
^ . 04M COSTS
($212^aoo/year/Xc«p repair and
maintenance,
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS
-------
-28-
APPENDIX 3
-------
Ntw York State Department of Environmental Conservation
SO Writ Road, Albany, Ntw York 12233 -7010
Thomas C. Jorilng
CommlMlon«r
SEP 1 7 *'*
Mr. Corstantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Sidamon-Eristoff:
RE: Record of Decision (ROD)
Syosset Landfill (Site No. 130011)
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed
the draft Record of Decision, dated August 28, 1990, for the Syosset
Landfill Site and concurs with the remedy as follows:
1. Implementing closure of the landfill in accordance with New York State
requirements specified in 6NYCRR Part 360, Solid Waste Management.
Facilities Regulations;
2. Maintenance and monitoring of the existing passive perimeter gas venting
system;
3. Installing a passive gas system for the Landfill area itself designed
to be readily converted to an active system;
4. Providing monitoring of site groundwater and gas wells in accordance
with 6NYCRR Part 360 requirements;
5. Providing long-term operation and maintenance of the final cover and
gas venting system, including routine inspection and repair;
6. Restricting future use of the site to protect the integrity of the final
cover;
7. Maintaining existing restrictions on access to the Landfill property;
8. Review of this remedy within five years of commencement of remedial
action to ensure that it continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment, since the remedy consists primarily
of containment and not permanent treatment of the source.
-------
Page 2
In order for New York State to concur with the final ROD, the document must
state that sampling, in two quarterly rounds, of gas vents for methane and
non-methane volatile organic compounds will take place after installation of
the final cover and venting system, and a determination will be made on that
basis as to whether conversion to an active system and/or treatment of gas
is necessary. • . .
Sincerely,
Deputy Commissioner
cc: M. Hauctman
-------
•29-
APPENDIX 4
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
AT THE
SYOSSET LANDFILL SITE
SYOSSET, NEW YORK
Public Comment:
July 28 through August 28, 1990
September 1990
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Prepared by:
Booz'Allen & Hamilton Inc.
Under subcontract Number TES 68-W9-004, WA Number C02072
with COM Federal Programs Corporation
-------
SYOSSET LANDFILL SITE
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview 1
Background 3
Part I: Summary of Commentors' Major Issues and Concerns..3
A. Extent and Migration of Contaminants 4
B. Health Concerns 5
C. On-Site Monitoring 6
D. Future Plans for Site Use 7
E. Future Meetings 8
Fart II: Comprehensive Response to Significant Comments.... 8
A. Health and Safety 9
B. Effectiveness of the Preferred Remedy 11
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
8YOSSET LANDFILL SUPERFUND BITE
This community relations responsiveness suaunary is divided
into the following sections:
Overview; This section discusses EPA's preferred
alternative for remedial action.
Background; This section provides a brief history of
community interest and concerns raised during
remedial planning at the Syosset Landfill
Site.
Part I; This section provides a summary of commentors'
major issues and concerns, and expressly
acknowledges and responds to those raised by
the local community. "Local community" may
include local homeowners, businesses, the
municipality, and not infrequently,
potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
Part II; This section provides a comprehensive response
to all significant comments and is comprised
of the specific legal and technical questions
raised during the public comment period.
Any points of conflict or ambiguity between information
provided in Parts I and II of this responsiveness summary
will be resolved in favor of the detailed technical and legal
presentation contained in Part II. As an additional
resource, the transcript to the public meeting held on August
15, 1990 is attached as Appendix A. Some EPA responses in
the Responsiveness Summary clarify answers given at the
August 15, 1990 public meeting, as reported in Appendix A.
OVERVIEW
At the time of the public comment period, EPA published its
preferred alternative for the Syosset Landfill Superfund site
located in Syosset, New York. EPA generally prefers treatment or
removal technologies which reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of waste contaminants. In the case of large landfills,
however, the sheer quantity of waste makes such methods
prohibitive. This was particularly true for the Syosset Landfill
where size and the low level of contaminants present rendered
treatment or removal of site materials impractical.
-------
EPA screened possible alternatives, giving consideration to
nine key criteria:
Threshold criteria, including
Overall protection of human health and the
environment
Compliance with Federal, State, and
local environmental and health laws
Balancing criteria, including
Long-term effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness
Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume
Ability to implement
cost, and
Modifying criteria, including
State acceptance, and
Local acceptance.
EPA weighed State and local acceptance of the remedy prior to
reaching the final decision regarding the remedy for the site.
The Agency's selected remedy is Alternative 2B, the
multiple-layer capping method which makes use of a geosynthetic
membrane. The cap's barrier protection layer will consist of
asphalt in areas to be used by the Town Public Works department and
vegetation in all non-use areas. EPA believes the 2B alternative
provides the best cap efficiency, protecting against infiltration
of water into the landfill, and achieves the best overall balance
among the nine criteria.
BACKGROUND
Community interest and concern about the site has been
relatively steady over the past several years.
To obtain public input on the feasibility study report and the
proposed remedy, EPA held a public comment period from July 28 to
August 28, 1990.
-------
EPA's community relations efforts included preparation of a
community relations plan in December 1986; an informational meeting
on the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) with
the Birchwood Civic Association on May 19, 1987 and on later
occasions; and the establishment of site information repositories
located at the Oyster Bay Town Hall and the Syosset Public Library
which contain the RI/FS Report and other relevant documents; and a
public meeting notice that appeared in the July 28, 1990 edition of
Nevsdav. In addition, EPA prepared a Fact Sheet, describing the
Agency's proposed remedial action plan for the site. This proposed
plan fact sheet was sent to the information repository and
distributed to citizens and officials noted on EPA's site mailing
list in July 1990; A public meeting was held on August 15, 1990.
Approximately 30 people attended the public meeting. Those in
attendance included local area residents, State, County, and local
officials, local school officials, news media representatives,
representatives from EPA, and representatives from companies
interested in the site activities and cleanup decisions. EPA also
maintained contact with local officials and citizen leaders
throughout the remedy selection process.
PART I: SUMMARY OF COMMENTORS' MAJOR ISSUES AMD CONCERNS
This section provides a summary of commentors' major issues
and concerns, and expressly acknowledges and responds to those
raised by the local community. The major issues and concerns
regarding the proposed remedy for the Syosset Landfill site were
received at the public meeting on August 15, 1990, and during the
public comment period. These concerns fall into the following
categories.
A. Extent and Migration of Contaminants
B. Health and Safety
c. on-sit« Monitoring
D. Coat and Liability
E. Future Plans for Site Use
A summary of the comments and EPA's response to them is provide
below.
A. Extent and Migration of Contaminants
A citizen referred to page 26 of the Versar report which
noted that no analyses of surface water or surface soil were
available. The citizen commented that water and gaseous
-------
vapors can be observed rising out of the landfill and that
contaminated dust was not addressed in the RI. The citizen
asked if these analyses would be conducted?
EPA Response. Surface soil testing is unnecessary because
the landfill will be capped, therefore no one can come into
contact with soils at the landfill. With respect to testing
surface water on the site, EPA concluded during the Operable
Unit One RI that due to the site's location in a depression,
no surface water would leave the site. Furthermore, EPA
concluded that the small standing ponds on the site were
insufficient to sample. In addition, the proposed remedy
includes regrading the landfill surface to eliminate standing
water.
A citizen referred to page 54 of the Versar report stating
that wells in the landfill area are considered to be
potentially affected. The citizen asked what studies would
be performed on the wells.
EPA Response. Operable Unit Two will include ground water
well sampling. In addition, the Nassau County Health
Department routinely samples all public water supply wells.
Referring to a statement on page 49 of the RI/FS indicating
that the landfill is a continuing source of contamination
into a sole source aquifer, a citizen asked why wells N4133
and N4246 were closed and whether a leachate problem existed.
EPA Response. We are informed that the wells were closed by
the Health Department because of a taste and odor problem.
Because we are not sure how far leachate has traveled off the
site, Operable Unit Two will include sampling to determine
whether leachate is a problem affecting area wells.
An attendee asked whether ground water sampling had been
performed on the south side of the site.
EPA Response. Yes. The site is surrounded by ground-water
monitoring wells, which were sampled and analyzed.
An attendee stated that the RI/FS report was confusing with
respect to the presence of a contaminant plume. Two portions
of the report differed on whether a plume was present. The
attendee asked whether this would be studied further in
Operable Unit Two.
EPA Response. Yes. This will be studied further. A plume
does exist, which consists of compounds typically associated
with landfills, such as sodium chloride, sulfates, nitrates,
and salts. These compounds are not hazardous at the levels
present at the Syosset Landfill. Other compounds, for
-------
example, volatile organic compounds, were found in the soils
and ground water. The studies performed thus far on the site
did not correlate those compounds with the leachate plume.
Sampling studies in Operable Unit Two will analyze these
findings further.
B, Health and Safety
A citizen expressed concern regarding RI/FS cancer risk
analysis which was based on an individual living in the area
for approximately nine years. Stating that some community
members have lived there for 34 years, including children who
have lived near the site since birth and attended the South
Grove School. The citizen stated that at least two residents
have died from cancers usually associated with chemical
risks. The citizen asked whether a comprehensive cancer risk
study will be done on residents within a one-mile radius of
the site over the last fifteen to twenty years.
EPA Response. Representatives of the New York State Health
Department have informed EPA that no cancer incidence studies
have been performed for Nassau County specific to proximity
to the landfill.
EPA has presented cancer risk as a reasonable worst case
analysis for all of the exposure scenarios evaluated in the
health and endangerment assessment report. The development
of these scenarios incorporates both scientific studies and
statistical methods to produce a reasonable average risk
number for the local population. The nine-year exposure
duration represented the national median time an individual
spends at one residence. Although there are people who live
in the Syosset area for longer and shorter periods of time,
it is not feasible to study each individual. In addition ,
the actual residence time is not the only time frame
incorporated into the analysis. For example, a person does
not stay in their residence 24 hours a day; they may travel
to work for several hours out of the day. There are many
other factors that figure into the risk equation, including
sensitivity of the population, type of chemical exposed,
means of exposure, etc. Risk estimation uses statistical
methods that incorporate averaging. These are EPA
recommended procedures that allow comparisons between
exposure scenarios and sites.
C. On-site Monitoring
One attendee noted that the report indicates that two gas
sniffers near the South Grove School annex reveal no leakage
of methane or other gases. The attendee stated that from
-------
time to time the monitoring sniffers are inoperable and asked
whether the equipment operation would be evaluated or
reviewed.
EPA Response. The operation of methane gas monitors will not
be reviewed at this time. These monitors are operated by the
local school board and a member of the school board has
informed EPA that the monitors are fully functional.
A citizen asked if the venting system described in the report
will resolve the problem with methane gas, and what period of
time will be required before all the methane gas is vented
off?
EPA Response. The venting system will, upon completion of
construction, mitigate the methane problems. Venting will be
provided over the course of a twenty to twenty-five year
period to release methane and other gases, which would build
up under an airtight cap. Landfills typically generate
methane gas for this time period.
An attendee emphasized that the aquifer beneath the landfill
supplies approximately 88% of Nassau County's potable water.
Stating concern that the RI/FS report described the landfill
as a source of contamination, the attendee asked whether a
long-term plan to monitor the landfill would be in effect for
twenty to twenty-five years.
EPA Response. Yes. Long-term monitoring is part of the
remedy.
D. Cost and Liability
A citizen asked if the total cost of the clean up is
twenty-six billion?
EPA Response. No. The cost is projected at twenty-six
million dollars.
Referring to past permit violations on the part of Cerro
Wire, an attendee asked whether Cerro Wire would be named in
any cost recovery suit?
EPA Response. It is undecided at this time whether Cerro
Wire, which is a PRP at this site, would be named as a
defendant in a cost recovery suit.
-------
E. Futur* Plans for Sit* Us*
Several concerns were raised regarding future plans for site
use. An attendee stated opposition to capping the site fully
with asphalt and allowing it to be used for a parking lot for
the Long Island Railroad, or a shared parking lot with any
industrial user. The attendee suggested the alternative of a
park. The attendee expressed concern that nothing more
should happen to the site, other than to clean it up and
grass it over. Other citizens asked if the cleanup plan
leaves the possibility open for developing the site as a
parking lot in the future, and whether it would be prudent to
construct a railroad station complex while venting methane
gas for the next twenty-five years or more. Finally, a
community group wrote to EPA stating that it endorsed
Alternative 2B as a remedial measure but were concerned about
the potential environmental impact from use of the area for
mass public parking.
EPA Response. EPA has no control over local land use as long
as it is in conformance with the remediation being required.
An attendee asked if there was any remedy that could help
eliminate the constant risk to the workers of the town, the
people who use it, the children who go to the school, and the
people that live adjacent to the site over the next 30 months
to three years while the current proposed plan is being
implemented?
EPA Response. There is no easily-implementable short-term
remedy. Three years is an acceptable construction period for
the capping of a landfill of this size. It is not expected
that the health of the public will be compromised over the
short duration needed to implement the remedy.
F. Futur* Meetings
An attendee asked if the next public meeting could be held in
the Syosset area for the convenience of the residents?
EPA Response. Yes.
FART II: COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS
This section provides a comprehensive technical response to
comments or questions received during the public comment
period. Concerns and questions presented in this section
consist of two categories:
-------
9
A. Health and Safety
B. Effectiveness of the Preferred Remedy, and
A summary of the comments and EPA's response to them is provided
below.
A. Health and Safety
The Town of Oyster Bay (the "Town") commented in a letter to
EPA that EPA made mathematical conversion errors and incorrect
assumptions which affect the reported risk estimates for the site
even though the risk estimates are within the US EPA acceptable
range. The Town expressed several objections, noted as the use
of:
Incorrect soil gas data to calculate risk exposures
Well N-4133 as the closest ground-water withdrawal point
for estimating risk
Analytical results from unfiltered ground-water samples,
thereby possibly increasing the levels of detected
arsenic because of the preservation methods used for the
samples, and
A ground-water transport model to determine off-site
conditions.
The Town also objected to EPA's conclusion that all wells
within a one-mile radius of the site may be affected by the
site. The Town stated that, as addressed in the Endangerment
Assessment (EA), the above issues have resulted in an
unrealistically high assessment of the potential risks
associated with the site. The Town requested revision or
retraction of the EA.
EPA Response. EPA responded to the Town's comments prior to
issuance of the proposed plan and made appropriate changes to
the EA.
The mathematical correction error, which involved
conversion of raw soil gas data into the correct units,
was corrected in the EA.
Well N-4133 was considered as a potential source of
exposure to the water supply because it was in use
during part of the landfill operation period. Because
the well lies directly in the flow path of ground water
leaving the site, and it was used as a source of potable
water, it is considered to be1 "-indicative of the general
-------
10
condition of the localized aquifer. This assumption is
appropriately conservative and protective of human
health. Although all wells within a one-mile radius of
the site were considered to be potentially affected by
the site, only well N-4133 was used in the final risk
analysis because it was representative of the quality of
the localized aquifer within a reasonable distance from
the site and within the most likely flow path for ground
water.
Using unfiltered ground-water samples for the metals
analysis is conservative in its protection of human
health. Off-site sampling data were not used to
calibrate the ground-water model employed in the risk
evaluation because this data does not exist yet.
Modeling of the potential movement of contaminants in
the aquifer was performed to provide a conservative
estimate of the quality of the aquifer in off-site
locations. For further details on the issues outlined
above, the reader can consult the EA, which is contained
in the site Administrative Record at the information
repositories.
B. Effectiveness of the Preferred Remedy
A consulting firm representative wrote to EPA and objected to
the preferred alternative of capping the landfill and
recommended additional study of the feasibility of other
technologies, such as:
Biodegradation of organic materials in the landfill,
emphasizing aerobic degradation
Biodegradation of hydrocarbons in the landfill
Removal of metals by electrolytical or solidification
processes
Plasma incineration of other chemical compounds
Removal and treatment of leachate, or
Other forms of soil and ground water treatment.
These actions are intended to remediate sub-surface soil
contamination and ground-water contamination. The writer also
advised EPA that by using one of these alternative methods, a
portion of the cleanup cost could be recovered as the land
value appreciates over time. Other cost and energy saving
methods were suggested as part of the cleanup, including the
establishment of an on-site laboratory, use of wind power to
-------
11
drive ground-water pumps, and the use of solar radiation and
wind to evaporate ground water as a part of the treatment
scheme. Modification of the proposed capping scheme was also
suggested, including injection of sealants to prevent lateral
movement of leachate from the core of the landfill.
EPA Response. The Feasibility Study (FS) focused on the
following exposure routes:
*
Potential impacts caused by inhalation of VOCs from
on-site soils
Direct skin contact with on-site soils, and
On-site measures to reduce future leachate generation.
Remediation of the sub-surface soils via the suggested methods
would reduce the potential impact of the first two routes.
Both removal of sub-surface soils and subsequent treatment of
those soils by incineration or chemical or biological in-situ
treatment were identified in the FS. EPA screened out the
first technology because of high cost and the second because
it would be ineffective at the low contaminant concentrations
which are characteristic of the site. These technologies were
not considered further. The effects of on-site remediation on
potential off-site pathways, such as ground water, also were
addressed in the FS. Further delineation of the off-site
contamination and the potential risk derived from this
contamination, will be evaluated in the Second Operable Unit
RI/FS. Remedial plans for this exposure pathway have,
therefore, not been completed.
------- |